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
You could deduplicate based on vector similarity within a few days (7 days for big stories as their news cycle is longer, 24 or 48 hours for smaller stories). Idea: The number of stories within a cluster weighted by credibility of the source could be another element of the rating.