The rules for bots # Bots should be clearly prompted by a command # Bots that always post without human intervention are noisy and are often unwanted.
Bots should not act in a community without mods from that community being contacted first # Moderators should not have to chase down the bots being used in their community, it should be opt-in. Just ask, be nice.
Bots should minimize the space they take with their messages # A bot’s response should be a small as possible to avoid taking space that could be used by people.
Hi there!
I’ve been contacted regarding my @[email protected] bot. Currently it’s disabled for beehaw.org as can be seen here.
I’d like to raise a discussion though as I think the bot is really useful.
Here are some global all-time stats:
---------- --------- ----------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------ Comments Upvotes Downvotes Negative comments count Positive comments count Neutral comments count ---------- --------- ----------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------ 430 3096 82 0 429 1 ---------- --------- ----------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------These are per-instance stats (I stripped other instances than yours). If I’m not mistaken, downvotes are disabled on Beehaw, so the like ratio doesn’t say much, but other numbers still could:
-------------------- ---------- --------- ----------- ------------ --------------------- Instance Comments Upvotes Downvotes Like ratio Upvotes per comment -------------------- ---------- --------- ----------- ------------ --------------------- beehaw.org 28 236 0 100.00% 8.43Edit: The stats are generated by this - while it’s not the cleanest code I’ve ever written, I think it’s pretty readable and everyone can see that the stats are not some weird numbers to make it look better than it is.
I liked the original autotldr bot on Reddit. The one here though seems to be producing a large summary instead of just TL;DR.
Here’s an example: https://lemmings.world/comment/920986
This comment takes up most of the screen space on my mobile device. I don’t consider this to be a TL;DR. At this rate, I’d opt to just read the article in question instead.
The other problem is that lengthy TL;DRs like this obstruct comments, making it annoying to scroll past for those of who are on mobile devices. I could block the bot of course, but I don’t want to - I do want a legit TL;DR, not a reworded article.
Here’s my attempt at generating a TL;DR of the mentioned article, using ChatGPT:
IMO, this is what a TL;DR should look like - a single paragraph and under 150 words.
To be fair, the TL;DR would be a lot shorter if the breaks between sentences were removed. I personally draw the line at around 200 words for a summary, so the 183 words in the summary is a bit long but still a reasonable TL;DR for an article.
Since Lemmy implements spoiler tags, I think wrapping the summary in a spoiler tag would be a way to solve the length problem.
I love the idea of wrapping the summary in a spoiler tag! I think that would be a great idea to be implemented for bots like that and would solve a lot of this. That’s a great idea you’ve had and I thank you for sharing it!
This makes sense and I agree.
Note - I’m not a beehaw user
I kinda prefer this though, IMO condensing an article down into a one or a few sentences could make it difficult to facilitate a “healthy” discussion
A really miniscule TL;DR seems more likely for a bunch of assumptions to be made based on that alone, and increase the likelihood of users calling each other out for not actually reading the article.
Oh ☹️ I decreased the font size for comments on my mobile so there was a higher content density but that might not work for you
My thoughts are mostly that I wish this were integrated in Lemmy because of a couple reasons:
I like that idea a lot…solves some problems while still allowing the bot.
It makes the bot less useful, sadly.
How so?
People really more scan than read and such a small comment would get missed very often.
I get what you’re getting at there, but I don’t think it would necessarily be an issue. I think that if you were to put the summary itself under the spoiler and nothing else, it would be reasonable to provide a couple more lines to explain the bot. I’d think that even with a couple of extra lines of copy it would take less real estate most of the time than if the bot continued to just provide the summary and two lines.
I’m also recalling that AutoTLDR on Reddit had some extra bits like an FAQ and providing extended summaries. Links to that stuff might also help to balance your visibility. I think the bulk of your screen real estate comes from the summary, so this content would be less of an issue in comparison.
Although I do like the idea of having some other information outside of the spoiler, I’m of the opinion that bots should distinguish themselves with the bot flag, and no more. The message should introduce the content, rather than the bot itself, and information about the bot should go in the bot’s bio.
Admittedly, I agree with you in making the footprint leaner if it can be helped. The Lemmy UI and best practices working with that would ideally handle flagging the bot and let people make informed decisions from there.
I was trying to strike a balance between keeping it lean and keeping it visible. @rikudou’s concern was that spoiler folding would lead to people missing the bot as they scanned through the comments. At least with how Lemmy UI currently is, I have to concede that I think they have a point. Last I checked on the default Lemmy UI theme at least, the Bot flag is relatively easy to miss scanning through comments. Moderator and Administrator icons are already relatively low-key, but the Bot flag currently uses the more discrete body text color and no outlining. I didn’t even know bots had a name flag until you pointed it out.
It’s a delicate balance between keeping the comment reasonably slim but also reasonably visible. I think I was trying to come up with a solution that works with the limitations as-is, but your recommendation is definitely what we ought to go with in the long-term if we can make it happen. It seems to me like it would be better to solve a fair chunk of this through the UI itself rather than bulking up the copy.
I think adding 🤖 makes it stand out enough that even while skimming, I’d stop to look at what that is. Honestly this proposed format seems great, since it’s short but stands out, and I can “opt-into” reading the tl;dr by clicking the spoiler.
I understand your point.
So, is there some kind of verdict? I’m not sure what’s there to do now.
I’m not sure…maybe the other admins are thinking things over.
Yep.
::: spoiler [Title] [Content] :::[Title]
I’m not sure how to properly tag a user to where they’ll definitely get a notification, so I wanted to reply directly to you to make sure you’ve seen the idea mentioned here in this comment about maybe wrapping the summaries in spoiler tags so that those who want to read it easily can and so that they don’t automatically take up so much space to scroll past on smaller screens and those that don’t want them maybe aren’t as bothered (for lack of being able to think of a better word to use here) by them.
I do appreciate TL:DR; bots but/and I think the spoiler tags idea is a great idea and I would love to see it implemented, if you feel that’s something you’d like to do. :)
If that’s the condition for the bot staying on Beehaw, sure.
It appears, from what I can tell, that you’ve got a green light on this referencing what @[email protected] has stated.
Is this acceptable? Also tagging @[email protected]:
https://a.lemmings.world/lemmings.world/comment/968138
Yes.
I’m just trying to understand, generally speaking, how the bot works. It appears to me that the bot is looking for posted articles that exceed a certain word count threshold. If it finds these, then it creates a summary and posts this as a comment. Am I understanding this correctly?
It has support for specific news sites, I don’t want to rely on some automatic text extraction because those are prone to breaking. Here are the content extractors themselves, each for one site. If a post that contains a link to any of the supported sites is found across all of Lemmy (that the bot can see), it extracts the text and then summarizes it using this. It takes 6 sentences directly from the article that look most important to the machine learning model it uses. Then it posts it as a comment.
Would it be possible for the bot to DM us instead when communities decide to ban/restrict them for whatever reason?
I’ve found this bot incredibly useful personally, and I assume the community does too, looking at various Lemmy posts where the TLDR bot upvotes closely follow the OP upvotes (sometimes exceeding it)
Note - I’m not a beehaw user, for anyone reading whose apps do not show my instance.
Well, I may try it, but it might drive the costs of running the bot significantly if a lot of users use the feature.
Edit: Done. Will see how it goes, might roll this back if it’s too taxing on my wallet.