the grey text feels disruptive to normal reading flow but idk why green link text wouldn’t also be, maybe i’m just not used to it. e.g., in this post’s “Curating technical posts” where ‘Curating’ is grey, my mind sees ”<Curating | distinct term> technical posts” instead of [normal meaning inference not overfocused on individual words]
Is this useful, as a reader?
if the authors make sure they agree with all the definitions they allow into the glossary, yes. author-written definitions would be even more useful because how things are worded can implicitly convey things like, the underlying intuition, ontology, or related views they may be using wording to rule in or out.
Whenever an author with 100+ karma saves a draft of a post, our database queries a language model to:
i would prefer this be optional too, for drafts which are meant to be private (e.g. shared with a few other users, e.g. may contain possible capability-infohazards), where the author doesn’t trust LM companies
Currently it takes 40-60 seconds to generate jargon (we’ve experimented with ways of trimming that down but it’s gonna be at least 20 seconds)
I want authors to actually review the content before it goes live.
Once authors publish the post, I expect very few of them to go back and edit it more.
If it happens automagically during draft saving, then by the time you get to “publish post”, there’s a natural step where you look at the autogenerated jargon, check if it seems reasonable, approve the ones you like and then hit “publish”
Anything that adds friction to this process I expect to dramatically reduce how often authors bother to engage with it.
the grey text feels disruptive to normal reading flow but idk why green link text wouldn’t also be, maybe i’m just not used to it. e.g., in this post’s “Curating technical posts” where ‘Curating’ is grey, my mind sees ”
<Curating | distinct term>technical posts” instead of [normal meaning inference not overfocused on individual words]if the authors make sure they agree with all the definitions they allow into the glossary, yes. author-written definitions would be even more useful because how things are worded can implicitly convey things like, the underlying intuition, ontology, or related views they may be using wording to rule in or out.
i would prefer this be optional too, for drafts which are meant to be private (e.g. shared with a few other users, e.g. may contain possible capability-infohazards), where the author doesn’t trust LM companies
Mmm, that does seem reasonable.
I’ve reverted the part that automatically generates jargon for drafts until we’ve figured out a better overall solution.
Why not generate it after it’s posted publically?
Reasoning is:
Currently it takes 40-60 seconds to generate jargon (we’ve experimented with ways of trimming that down but it’s gonna be at least 20 seconds)
I want authors to actually review the content before it goes live.
Once authors publish the post, I expect very few of them to go back and edit it more.
If it happens automagically during draft saving, then by the time you get to “publish post”, there’s a natural step where you look at the autogenerated jargon, check if it seems reasonable, approve the ones you like and then hit “publish”
Anything that adds friction to this process I expect to dramatically reduce how often authors bother to engage with it.