3 ms·
Dave here -- I've tweaked a bunch of the internal rules during the HN discussion today, and your comment now passes (using the default settings.) As for equivo
by vintagedave 8mo ago
Dave here -- I've tweaked a bunch of the internal rules during the HN discussion today, and your comment now passes (using the default settings.)
As for equivocation, that should be strongly dialed down too. It annoyed me too, it was "mush", and did not help. I hope you'll find the current version a lot more human.
I'm grateful for the feedback! Changing it based on all these comments has been intense over the past couple of hours, but boy is it now significantly improved and I am super grateful to you and other commenters.
- tacitusarc 8mo agoPerhaps in keeping with age-old internet behaviors, it completely fails to recognize sarcasm.
- dcanelhas 8mo agoHow shocking!
- hvb2 8mo agoThat's understandable, humans do in many cases too
- freedomben 8mo agoAs much as I love sarcasm that is done well, I do find that it translates very poorly to written text unless explicitly noted with /s or something like that. Even when annotated, it's extremely rare that a sarcastic comment actually furthers discussion or makes a meaningful point. If a person is using sarcasm, odds are pretty high that they aren't engaging substantively anyway. Given the difficulties with detection (which even many humans fail at) it seems like trying to detect sarcasm would just make the tool a lot less useful and would be mostly antithetical to the project goals anyway.
- breakitmakeit 8mo ago[dead]
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]