After some discussions in !chat, we came up with the conclusion we should adopt rules surrounding bots.
We’ll ban bots which we are aware of that currently don’t follow these rules and contact their creators. Please report bots that don’t follow these.
You must log in or # to comment.
I think it’d be good to mention implementing the solution mentioned in the comments about wrapping lengthy bot comments (like the TL:DR; bot summaries) in spoiler tags in the section mentioning keeping bot comment lengths short.
I do like the TL:DR; bot overall and I hope, if we are allowing bots, that something can be figured out to where it can come back to posting here.
Hopefully I worded that in a way that makes sense. I feel like I worded it awkwardly, lol. I’ve got mega brain fog, sorry! Please let me know if you’d like me to try and reword it or explain anything :)
I’d just suggest that this is a defacto ban based on the current requirements.
If bots are going to be command triggered and require pre-approval by individual community moderators, I think it would be prudent to include an index of registered bots + commands in the community info pages.
Currently I can’t think of any reasonable way for a Beehaw user to know which bots are operational and what their commands are. If bots need to be command triggered but there’s no way to find out which ones are functional, why approve them to begin with?
I’d just suggest that this is a defacto ban.
To be honest, I’m OK with that. If I want a bot to summarise an article, I’ll go to ChatGPT or use Bing Chat. I don’t come to BeeHaw to interact with a bot. I’m here to interact with humans and in my opinion it should be a human that decides to post a link to an article and that human should also summarise it. They will do a better job than even the best bot.
While I’m not outright opposed to bots, I have yet to see a bot on Lemmy or Reddit that actually added value to the community. Usually every bot I encounter gets blocked the first time I see it.
Unfortunately a lot of bots on Lemmy that’s not really an option, for example a bot that finds interesting articles and posts them on Lemmy… I don’t want to see those posts, but at the same time I might want to see the discussion around the article. So I can’t block it.
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.
My thoughts are mostly that I wish this were integrated in Lemmy because of a couple reasons:
- People might be interested to see comments, see that there’s one in a thread only to realize it’s a bot
- The sorting algorithm of lemmy makes no difference between bots and users so it can give a much higher importance to posts which attract bots (namely news)
- The algorithm really should so I made an issue about it (https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3806)
- Posting it as a comment just feels a bit noisy? It takes a lot of space in a thread.
- On the other hand, maybe it could be hidden by a spoiler tag? I think @[email protected] mentioned this being a possibility
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:
Two manuscripts published on the arXiv pre-peer-review repository claim to have synthesized a room-temperature superconductor, LK-99. This superconductor is a variation of lead apatite, and allegedly operates not only at room temperature but also above water’s boiling point, at regular pressures. The synthesis process is complex, yielding potential variations in the final product. Early attempts to reproduce these findings have shown mixed results, adding to the intrigue and uncertainty surrounding the material’s properties. While these claims could potentially revolutionize the field, their validation would give rise to further challenges about how to transform this material into a practical, high-current-carrying form. The upcoming period is likely to see intense activity from labs worldwide in their efforts to corroborate these results, which could significantly accelerate the emergence of a scientific consensus.
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!
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.
On a personal note, when I was using Reddit, I greatly appreciated the TL;DR bot.
There’s been a similar one on Lemmy.
