• fer0n@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not much of a summary if you ask me. Might as well read the entire article.

        • fer0n@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you bring 75% of the original article length to an English teacher and call it a TLDR, I’m pretty sure you’d fail the exercise.

      • fer0n@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I saw someone propose that there should be a min post length for the summary bot, because one of the summaries was just as long as the article. It’s nice to have it inline, but still.

        In this case it’s 75% of the original article and it also introduces the risk of getting something wrong or leaving something important out. It’s shortening and rewriting it, but it’s not summarizing it.

        At least let the first paragraph be a summary of the entire article and then you can read on and go into more detail if you want.

    • anlumo@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe you’re just used to the usual articles where the whole story is based on a tweet (X post?) and thus the content is already contained in the headline.

      • fer0n@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not at all against long articles, I read plenty. I’m just saying imo this isn’t a precise enough summary.

          • fer0n@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Haha yeah, I get the same feeling. You definitely shouldn’t rely on it, but at least the bot isn’t trying to click bait you by intentionally hinting at something more exciting than actually happened.

            The headline here makes it sound like he’s sold it off entirely, that it‘s most likely just a paper shuffling is lost. But if you want to summarize the actual content, most people who didn’t bother reading the article won’t read a second, potentially worse, article if it’s 75% of the first one. Make it one concise paragraph and people might actually find out a bit more detail.