🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
She didn’t wake up from her afternoon nap in late May, on the dusty scrap of land she knew as home, with only a blue plastic sheet to shade her.
-“This is what Indian vulnerability looks like,” says Aditya Valiathan Pillai, who studies policy responses to extreme heat at the New Delhi-based thinktank Sustainable Futures Collaborative.
“You have 75% of India’s working population, well over 350 million people who are directly heat exposed because of their jobs,” he says, citing World Bank data.
On a shaky phone line arranged by a friend, she tells NPR that she pushed together a lean-to near her tree where she gave birth.
In fact, some areas of India may become the first places on earth to be exposed to heatwaves so extreme that humans will not be able to survive them without air conditioning or other types of cooling, according to a 2020 study by the consulting group McKinsey.
The dead included 33 poll workers in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, where citizens were casting their vote in the last stage of India’s six-week elections that ended on June 4.
i gotta say, this AutoTL:DR seems kind of…bad. “she tells NPR” is a pronoun attached to person that is not named elsewhere in the TLDR. Maybe Beehaw should look into banning this one? I’m not sure how to offer feedback to the bot’s author.
I think it’s to be expected and excusable. When reading the summary with it in mind, that it’s a bot summary, not a human summary, it’s acceptable and still useful. Text is not necessarily coherent. And when it isn’t, it can indicate other content.
I read a different autosummary earlier today with a similar issue. It referred to something or someone not previously mentioned in the summary. With auto-summarization in mind, it was obvious that there is more information on that in the full article. In a way, that was also useful in and of itself (instead of simple emission).
Dunno why asking whether to ban. Are others even better? None logically understand the text. If most are coherent, this may be an outlier. If machine summarization is not good enough for someone they don’t have to read it.
i bring it up because there was a discussion at some point about whether beehaw as a whole should allow bots. I think the agreement was that some users still find them helpful. I’m just questioning if that is still the case, as the summary doesn’t strike me as particularly useful. But if others disagree, then i have no beef with it.
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
She didn’t wake up from her afternoon nap in late May, on the dusty scrap of land she knew as home, with only a blue plastic sheet to shade her.
-“This is what Indian vulnerability looks like,” says Aditya Valiathan Pillai, who studies policy responses to extreme heat at the New Delhi-based thinktank Sustainable Futures Collaborative.
“You have 75% of India’s working population, well over 350 million people who are directly heat exposed because of their jobs,” he says, citing World Bank data.
On a shaky phone line arranged by a friend, she tells NPR that she pushed together a lean-to near her tree where she gave birth.
In fact, some areas of India may become the first places on earth to be exposed to heatwaves so extreme that humans will not be able to survive them without air conditioning or other types of cooling, according to a 2020 study by the consulting group McKinsey.
The dead included 33 poll workers in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, where citizens were casting their vote in the last stage of India’s six-week elections that ended on June 4.
Saved 85% of original text.
i gotta say, this AutoTL:DR seems kind of…bad. “she tells NPR” is a pronoun attached to person that is not named elsewhere in the TLDR. Maybe Beehaw should look into banning this one? I’m not sure how to offer feedback to the bot’s author.
@rikudou@lemmings.world is the contact point for this bot - you could reach out if they don’t respond to being tagged
I think it’s to be expected and excusable. When reading the summary with it in mind, that it’s a bot summary, not a human summary, it’s acceptable and still useful. Text is not necessarily coherent. And when it isn’t, it can indicate other content.
I read a different autosummary earlier today with a similar issue. It referred to something or someone not previously mentioned in the summary. With auto-summarization in mind, it was obvious that there is more information on that in the full article. In a way, that was also useful in and of itself (instead of simple emission).
Dunno why asking whether to ban. Are others even better? None logically understand the text. If most are coherent, this may be an outlier. If machine summarization is not good enough for someone they don’t have to read it.
i bring it up because there was a discussion at some point about whether beehaw as a whole should allow bots. I think the agreement was that some users still find them helpful. I’m just questioning if that is still the case, as the summary doesn’t strike me as particularly useful. But if others disagree, then i have no beef with it.