zlacker

>>t0bia_+(OP)
Very cool!

>“Today ChatGPT read 1289 top news and gave 13 of them a significance score over 6/10.”

Is an excellent hook.

I wish there was more of a basis on the score it chose. For example:

>“Russia suffers 100,000 casualties in Ukraine conflict, US estimates.” is #2 and ranked 6.8

>“White House estimates Russia has suffered 100,000 casualties in Ukraine since December.” is #237 and ranked 3.8.

>>KMnO4+d5
Yeah, I'm still thinking about the scoring.

Initially I asked ChatGPT to estimate three things: event scale, event magnitude and event potential. That often resulted in clickbait articles going to the top.

To fix this I started to also ask it to estimate source credibility, so tabloids would get much lower score than, say New York Times.

Now you noticed another problem, similar articles get very different scores. I think ideally I could do some sort of deduplication, but I don't know how to implement it yet.

>>yakhin+H8
Would getting a summary from ChatGPT with a prompt to eliminate clickbait/bias be helpful before evaluating the event?

>>jrhizo+6G
Maybe it's my low prompting skills, but I couldn't make ChatGPT give lower importance to tabloid articles when they claimed that the "world is ending" or something similar.

Every time ChatGPT saw the words "World is ending" (not real example) it gave those articles very high score.

Estimating source credibility was the only solution I came up with.