Even the tldr bot forwards such a heavy bias into the delivery of this information, I couldn’t even get through it without eye-rolling. I’d like to receive the info, and then be allowed to think for myself.
This isn’t journalism - it’s a thirsty-for-validation, one-sided take on this topic. This proposal may not be viable in a vacuum, but there may be some interesting ideas that can be taken from it, when the reader isn’t being spoonfed the psyche of an author that clearly wants you to agree with them. Like I said - I’d rather either hear both sides fairly, or get the info without it already dripping with the stank of another person’s very negative opinion. Whether or not you agree with me, as long as you’re thinking for yourself, you’re doing it right.
Edited first sentence for clarity.
I agree with you that the article isn’t neutral but I feel like after that dumbfuck manifesto, no one should have to treat anyone at Andreeson Horowitz seriously again.
The tldr bot is pulling directly from the article - it used to use ChatGPT wayy back when it was originally created, but it got expensive for the creator, so now I believe it uses some sentence interpreter library to compare relevance of paragraphs, in combination with semantic HTML tags/markup.
The code for it is on GitHub
I almost wish our bots would remove bias, unless it’s some kind of persuasive essay. I’m sure there are some out there.
And to be clear, I’m blaming the author, not the bot. It’s just forwarding the sentiment of the author, albeit more succinctly.
Removing things is not sufficient for removing bias. Omission is a kind of bias. You can lie by cherry-picking just some of the truth and skipping the rest
I agree here entirely.
The article is pretty much at fault here, as far as the bot is concerned if garbage goes in, garbage comes out
“I’m a bot, not a miracle worker”
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Venture capital giant Andreessen Horowitz has announced its intent to begin lobbying the U.S. government, and their plan is as tone-deaf and obtuse as this summer’s dreadful “Techno-Optimist Manifesto.” Essentially, they will give to anyone — literally anyone — who “supports an optimistic technology-enabled future.”
This is what’s called being a single-issue voter, and while co-founder Ben Horowitz (who penned the blog post) seems to think announcing themselves as such gives their lobbying a child-like purity, it’s quite the opposite.
They would argue that they’re pro-people by way of being pro-tech, for example as they write, “Artificial Intelligence has the potential to uplift all of humanity to an unprecedented quality of living.”
The debates on net neutrality, on Section 230, on TikTok, on disinformation in social media, and on a16z’s pet techs AI, cryptocurrency and biotech — all partisan!
The problem with a16z’s philosophy here is that it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing: a nakedly deregulatory and pro-capital agenda superficially draped with the language of empowerment.
You have to imagine that some cigarette industry executive wrote a similar blog post in the ’60s: We are a non-partisan, single-issue voter on the misguided regulatory regime unfairly preventing Americans from enjoying the great taste and health benefits of our all-natural tobacco products.
The original article contains 781 words, the summary contains 211 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
