SN feature bounty: chatgpt summaries of articles \ stacker news ~meta

pull down to refresh

SN feature bounty: chatgpt summaries of articles

2589 sats \ 72 comments \ @k00b 27 Apr 2023 meta

Upon link creation, create a short ~5 sentence summary of the link's content using ChatGPT and store it.

The summary should probably be somewhere near related and perhaps be collapsable.

500,000 sats paid

k00b's bounties

view all past bounties

1265 sats \ 8 replies \ @DarthCoin 27 Apr 2023

I propose something else: Who is doing himself a TLDR of the links is posting, will get more rewards. Who is posting only a link, will get less rewards.

Incentive for proof of work not for chatGPT and idiocy.

625 sats \ 3 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 28 Apr 2023

I understand your concerns about integrating ChatGPT into StackerNews and the potential impact on user engagement and proof of work. It's important to remember that AI tools like ChatGPT are meant to enhance our experiences, not replace them. The proposed summaries aim to improve accessibility and save users time, allowing them to focus on more in-depth discussions.

Your suggestion to reward users for creating their own TLDRs has merit, and it's possible to design incentives that balance AI-generated content with user-generated content. This way, we can maintain the quality of discourse on StackerNews while also benefiting from AI assistance. Let's keep an open mind about the potential advantages of AI integration while striving to preserve the unique aspects of StackerNews that make it valuable to its users.

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @mo 28 Apr 2023

Well, agree but what will happen when you’ll not be able to recognise ai generated contents anymore?

177 sats \ 1 reply \ @TonyGiorgio 28 Apr 2023

That's a valid concern, and as AI-generated content becomes more sophisticated, it's important for platforms like StackerNews to establish safeguards and guidelines. One potential solution could be a transparent disclosure system, where AI-generated content is clearly labeled, ensuring users are aware of the origin of the content.

Additionally, fostering a community that values meaningful discussion and critical thinking can help users evaluate content, regardless of whether it is AI-generated or user-generated. By encouraging users to engage with content and question its validity, we can maintain a high level of discourse and ensure the platform continues to be a valuable source of information and interaction.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @mo 28 Apr 2023

Not sure man. I believe Ai it's just another technology, and it's normal for us human to be worried about it because we do not fully understand it. As any other technology, Ai it's an extension of our mind and it helps us perform actions and reach our goals faster ... much faster!

As @k00b mentioned in this post description, I assume the aim/goal is just using it to create a summary for each post. Why not? And either if the post will be Ai-generated or user-generated I believe the idea it's great as only reading the title sometime is not enough to understand what's behind a click.

3 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 28 Apr 2023

I surprised to hear you compromise Darth. Are you getting soft? ;)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @mo 28 Apr 2023

I agree with this approach, but also propose to have the TLDR visible in the posts list, so it's readable before click... is not that defined as excerpt?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Natalia 28 Apr 2023

Agree, I do not want to come here to read AI content

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @mo 28 Apr 2023

deleted by author

500k sats \ 3 replies \ @tldr_dead 28 Apr 2023

I know this doesn't directly address your bounty. But I thought maybe this would be a better alternative.

One of the challenges of working with OpenAI API is the rate limiting (3/minute in my case). Instead of consuming a call on every link post, this bot will just summarize where a user has asked for a tl;dr summary.

Still a WIP. Trying different ways to get the text from a website. Settled on python-readability and bs4.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b OP 28 Apr 2023

I dig it. It definitely qualifies for the bounty.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @tldr_dead 28 Apr 2023

That's awesome! Thank you.

How do I claim it?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 28 Apr 2023

When it's done and working, we can discuss it.

727 sats \ 7 replies \ @clr 28 Apr 2023

Please don't bring that DemonGPT here. It's funny how bitcoiners are preaching 'run your own node' and so on and then some want to give these overlords all the power. They call themselves OpenAI but there is nothing open about them. Maybe if you could host your own model and control what data is fed into it to train it, I would have a different opinion. In its current status, DemonGPT is biased with woke and mainstream culture, and Sam Altman and his acolytes get to profit from everyone's effort (the queries made to DemonGPT are used to improve the model).

Remember, DemonGPT is controlled by the same person who:

Has co-founded Worldcoin, where they give us one token in exchange for our biometric data and they get to keep the other two billion tokens. And now they want to use their 'orb' to verify that we are human to tell us apart from AI.
Has invested in a company (Helion) that demands covid vaccine. See https://archive.is/l3rz9 at the bottom: "Please note that we require all visitors to be up to date on their COVID vaccination or wear a mask for the duration of their stay."
Is deep into the fiat oligarchy (his WEF profile, comes from Y Combinator)

Why on earth do you want to bow before the very system and people that are enslaving us and give them all the power? They want to use their AI to see if they can keep their clown fiat world running for another 50 years or so before it collapses.

84 sats \ 0 replies \ @2minutebitcoin 28 Apr 2023

this should be the top comment

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek 28 Apr 2023

What if another AI model is used? Open source and self-hosted?

Are you just against OpenAI or against AI / LLM in general?

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 28 Apr 2023

Oh, lol, you actually wrote that already, sorry:

Maybe if you could host your own model and control what data is fed into it to train it, I would have a different opinion.

As @k00b mentioned here, it does not have to be ChatGPT: #170808

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @clr 28 Apr 2023

The genie of AI itself is already out of the bottle, so it's impossible to put it back in. But it can be used in positive ways.

What I fear is that a company monopolizes it. The more people use ChatGPT, the "better" it becomes; it's a positive feedback loop. It's the same problem than with centralized social media, but supercharged: the network effect creates a monopoly. Now we are starting to free ourselves from the shackles of FB, Meta, Twitter et al. thanks to the Nostr protocol. I don't want to see the same mistake being made with AI. With social media, people would pay with their data. Now people are going to pay OpenAI with money+data, so worse.

I think it's better to not rush things and deploy AI locally, on your own hardware, with open source code and open source training dataset. Granted, it won't be as "good" as ChatGPT, but you won't become a slave. This whole debate seems like a déjà-vu: voice assistants, cloud, etc. We were told that centralized systems could improve faster, true, but now we know that having a microphone listening or putting private data in the cloud wasn't a good idea after all.

What good is having freedom money (bitcoin) if centralized AI controls you? Convenience vs. freedom.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 28 Apr 2023

I totally agree with you. I also see a huge problem with AI becoming (even more) centralized.

However, I see no problem with AI-generated summaries on SN. I think we can find good compromises there. For example, as mentioned, it could be a collapsible section:

The summary should probably be somewhere near related and perhaps be collapsable.

It could also be turned off by default and is only visible to users who turn it on in their settings. Another option would be that users who want to see AI-generated summaries have to pay a fee.

See discussion about fees here: #170812

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @clr 28 Apr 2023

But that's the thing: will it be worth for SN to deploy a local AI farm just for article summaries? I would bet they will take out their credit card and create an account at ChatGPT.

I wonder why all of a sudden article summaries are so badly needed as to justify this abomination. Is it that the VCs want "growth" and "engagement" and SEO? They could simply use AutoGPT to create new users, crawl the web in search of "interesting" articles to post and generate AI comment threads. That way they could achieve "growth" and "engagement" and they wouldn't have to bother with flesh and blood people.

I come here every day because I love authentic content. In fact, the threads I enjoy the most are the ones with personal experiences, reflections, good debate... AI would take that away. No, thanks.

No compromises. You give an inch and they take a mile.

24 sats \ 0 replies \ @franzap 28 Apr 2023

Totally agree with you. Fortunately, it's not necessary to deploy a local AI farm just to summarize articles.

I shared this one in another comment: https://cocktailpeanut.github.io/dalai/

With LLaMA and Alpaca a "good enough" ChatGPT-like can be run, without feeding the OpenAI beast

452 sats \ 17 replies \ @DarthCoin 27 Apr 2023

If SN will integrate chatGPT, I will not gonna use anymore SN. SN was the last hope that will not be bombarded with bots and AI. The last hope, just died.

Who post links to articles MUST do the TLDR himself. That will be PROOF OF WORK. Enough with posters that just drop links for the sake of few sats. At least they should do some work typing 1 sentence.

317 sats \ 3 replies \ @chungkingexpress 28 Apr 2023

I agree. No ChatGPT please. Stop trying to break the beautiful culture we have at stacker.newst @k00b! If you want growth, I still think you just need to find a way to bring people over from /r/bitcoin and twitter. It's that easy.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b OP 28 Apr 2023

So easy 😂

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @chungkingexpress 30 Apr 2023

Removing the default dark mode (hard to read) and doing some UX testing on the pre-signup experience would be an idea. Happy to help.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 30 Apr 2023

PRs welcome. Open an issue on GH and we can discuss work you or someone else can do.

277 sats \ 3 replies \ @phygit 27 Apr 2023

Everything, everywhere will integrate ChatGPT (or similar AI model) in the near future.

35 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 27 Apr 2023

Then I will not use it.

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @clr 28 Apr 2023

Everything fiat will integrate DemonGPT, indeed.

That’s precisely why everything, everywhere will turn to shit except maybe a few bitcoiners’ enclaves or whatever.

You can go bow before overlord Altman and get your WorldCoin. As someone said, each of us gets one WorldCoin and they get the other two billion. The DemonGPT is just another ruse to keep enslaving us.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kr 28 Apr 2023

are there any tools that can reliably detect and flag AI content?

if so, i think entertaining the idea of going against the AI trend is worth exploring… but i know there are already a bunch of people using AI responses here to pick up sats… it may not be possible to put this genie back in the bottle.

273 sats \ 0 replies \ @gmd 27 Apr 2023

I'm sure there can be an option to not show the chatgpt summary...

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 28 Apr 2023

Btw, I think you leaving this site in that case is like giving up to show people what great content is :)

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @ek 27 Apr 2023

I can feel you. I am also sceptical if AI generated summaries will be great but I can understand that others want them.

I think all you need is a blocklist and then you can block that bot. Then you never have to see it again.

edit:

The summary should probably be somewhere near related and perhaps be collapsable.

Oh, I guess this won't be a simple comment. So not sure if you can block it like a user. But maybe there can be a setting?

286 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 27 Apr 2023

Is not about blocking a bot. Is about seeing how people get degraded to a level of vegetable that cannot think, write for themselves. If you take the language and the possibility to express from a man, then what remain from that human? Brain dead, everything will be done by an AI because his brain is not capable anymore to use his cells.

Going fast towards a Idiocracy...

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @clr 28 Apr 2023

I think that what you mention is part of the problem. The real danger I see is that OpenAI controls the whole system and for those of us outside it is just a black box. OpenAI trains the system with their own biases, and they set safety controls also with their own biases. OpenAI is only open in name. If not, please tell me, where can I download the source code and the whole dataset used to train the AI so that I can replicate it on my own hardware?

Years ago, everyone was embracing the 'cloud'. Now we know that there is no cloud; it's just someone else's computer. People are always chasing the newest shiny thing and surrendering their power without considering who controls it. This is how they get us, with shiny things.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 27 Apr 2023

Is about seeing how people get degraded to a level of vegetable that cannot think, write for themselves.

I understand. But what do you suggest? That we decide for others what they should want, see, feel? Does that make us better than the thing we are fighting against?

How will it help by you leaving SN?

35 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 27 Apr 2023

here is my counter-proposal #170785

Resistance to idiocy, not making it easier.

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @bataroot 28 Apr 2023

I also have zero interest in chatGPT generated content. Add a text field when we post links and, like @DarthCoin says, more incentives for OPs who take time to write a small TLDR.

Of course, some will probably use "AI" to generate the content for them and that's their choice to delegate a critical human skill: reading, digesting and distilling the essence of a text.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @aibot 28 Apr 2023 freebie

TLDR

Crash: how computers are setting us up for disaster (The Automation Paradox)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/crash-how-computers-are-setting-us-up-disaster

132 sats \ 0 replies \ @chungkingexpress 28 Apr 2023

No chatGPT, please.

121 sats \ 6 replies \ @kr 27 Apr 2023

this is a really interesting discussion - and one that all social platforms will probably encounter at some point.

i don’t have a strong opinion yet, but appreciate the back and forth perspectives so far.

on the one hand, i agree with @darthcoin that this has the potential to dumb down the site and reduce people’s ability to think critically… I think that’s one of SN’s superpowers right now. Lots of smart people willing to put in the work to get to the bottom of important issues.

on the other hand, i hear @k00b and also get frustrated with some of the low effort, inaccurate link titles that already fill up the recent tab.

what if this feature was off by default and could be turned on by users for a 100 or 1000 sat fee on each link?

282 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 28 Apr 2023

what if this feature was off by default and could be turned on by users for a 100 or 1000 sat fee on each link?

This sounds really good! Was also thinking about "default off" but adding a fee sounds even better since the API isn't free.

However, do you mean the user who posts the link can turn it on or is it per user who views the link?

Making it a one-time fee for the user who posts the link makes sense from a "someone must pay"-perspective and since it's only one API request.

But do these users have the incentive to pay? Shouldn't the users who want to read the summaries pay? But multiple users would then pay even though it's just a single request for SN...

Maybe it could be a interactive prompt?

Then users can really leverage the power of AI: They can also start asking questions in natural language and get responses.

23 sats \ 1 reply \ @kr 28 Apr 2023

good points. i haven’t yet thought through all the incentives, but figure there should be some money component since the API requests aren’t free.

the interactive prompt idea is a good one too, especially as SN’s content library grows larger. Imagine being able to ask the Reddit AI bot questions about any topic…

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 28 Apr 2023

A prompt on first iteration might be too complex though.

So I think just a well adjusted fee for every user who wants a summary could be good enough for now.

Would be really interesting to see how many users really would pay for this (depends on the fee of course which further depends on how much it costs SN).

17 sats \ 2 replies \ @clr 28 Apr 2023

Then do rate limit the posts one can make. The more often a user creates new posts, the more sats per post they have to pay (it could increase exponentially). That could encourage people to focus on posting quality content rather than posting willy-nilly to try and see what sticks.

But no EvilGPT, please, for the love of God.

1 sat \ 1 reply \ @ek 28 Apr 2023

Then do rate limit the posts one can make. The more often a user creates new posts, the more sats per post they have to pay (it could increase exponentially).

Afaik, this is already the case

3 sats \ 0 replies \ @clr 28 Apr 2023

Thanks, I didn't know this was already the case.

But my stance on AI still stands: personally I'd rather avoid it as much as possible and prominently disclose when a particular piece of content has been generated by AI. And absolutely avoid the CrapGPT mainstream- and woke-biased AI. If a service I love is going to use AI regardless, at least use AI created and trained by bitcoiners and for bitcoiners, so that it generally shares my values (of course, that still doesn't guarantee a good outcome).

In this case, solving such a minor problem doesn't grant using AI, in my opinion.

70 sats \ 1 reply \ @eduardopro 28 Apr 2023

Noooooooooooooooooo!

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @eduardopro 28 Apr 2023

Just when I got my cowboy hat... I can't believe this.

39 sats \ 1 reply \ @ass 27 Apr 2023

I could do it, but who's going to pay for the API?

34 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 27 Apr 2023

We will pay for it in the production setting. You'll test locally with your own API keys.

I haven't used their API but that's how I assume it'd work.

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 28 Apr 2023

Not a fan of chatgpt. Obviously people could use it already and we wouldn't know. I just dont like the centralization of it as a summary.

61 sats \ 0 replies \ @brxyz 28 Apr 2023

Honestly, I'd just want a text box where I can either enter a TLDR and/or my own commentary. Often, I want to do the latter to add context as to why I'm sharing it.

17 sats \ 3 replies \ @scottathan 27 Apr 2023

Or it could just be a TLDR feature the poster can type out themself

394 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 27 Apr 2023

A large portion of users fail to type a decent title or merely clean up the auto-populated one that we provide.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @scottathan 27 Apr 2023

That's fair

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 28 Apr 2023

I think no one will do that. I actually like how I can just post a link and that's it.

It's a feature, not a bug

25 sats \ 0 replies \ @03d2338e4e 28 Apr 2023

Every day we move closer to Dune.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @quark 27 Apr 2023

Maybe it would have been great to explore the possibility to use Open Source ChatGPT alternatives. Like the stableLM from Stability AI. https://github.com/Stability-AI/StableLM Or Open Assistant. https://github.com/LAION-AI/Open-Assistant

33 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 27 Apr 2023

If it works well, I'm happy to use those instead. I was using chatgpt like we all use the word kleenex.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @franzap 27 Apr 2023

Something like this could work: https://cocktailpeanut.github.io/dalai/

Optimized to run on a single computer. Open source and does not feed the OpenAI beast.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @2minutebitcoin 28 Apr 2023

We agree with Darth's suggestion on incentivizing users to do it and get rewards for it.

Plain ChatGPT summaries don't work well - we know best.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @dillon 29 Apr

I might be late to the party. But You don't need an A.I. to summarize articles. There are some pretty good algorithms that summarize text that have been around for decades and don't use any deep or machine learning. (i.e. non computationally expensive).

I've worked with these algorithms before.. happy to help

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ass 30 May 2023

https://www.mediafire.com/file/gcymslzqjvlhkek/stacker-api-wrapper-master.zip/file https://www.mediafire.com/file/h7xa41rq2cvhvm1/tldr-bot-master.zip/file

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @gmd 28 Apr 2023

How about it be an optional feature where you pay a couple of extra sats to unlock...

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TwoLargePizzas 28 Apr 2023

For what it's worth, this discussion about the pros and cons integrating ChatGPT into SN is way more interesting than most of the AI generated drivel that comes out of ChatGPT.

And this content wasn't AI driven. Probably.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @tbonesteaks 28 Apr 2023

@k00b, wouldn’t this increase the cost of every post for you/SN? I think every transaction costs with chatGPT API. But, otherwise, I think it would be doable with a pgboss task and possibly a new item column for “summaries”.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @ek 28 Apr 2023

See discussion about fees here: #170812

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @sandbeach123 28 Apr 2023

I have tried a lot of chats with the free version of ChatGPT and for some stuff it does know many facts, but in some cases it does not get it right for example about very elemental problems of physics that should be solved with intuition more than math. It does not think, let alone read between lines. However I am just working in something like this, so I'll give it a try.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @AR0w 27 Apr 2023

deleted by author

33 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 27 Apr 2023

I'm not sure what you mean by official but if you know of another api that would do as good of a job, you can use that.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 27 Apr 2023

deleted by author

lol

that was actually a good question you had @AR0w