In contrast to many others, I did not find this particularly interesting.
- The comic on is oddly cropped and contains speech attribution errors.
- It calls me an "extremist" regarding the wrong thing (I am many kinds of extremist, but certainly not Haskell).
- It claims I believe "any software failure is merely a design error" which is a complete misunderstanding of the ideas I presented.
- It says things like "the geometric mean of the snack bowl" which doesn't have meaning in English.
I feel like it has picked up on certain keywords and then just rolled with its own stereotypes of what those keywords represent, rather than actually taking a good look at what I think. A roast works because the roaster has clearly spent time and effort and care understanding the person roasted. This is way too shallow for that.
The 2026 and 2035 predictions (with a few exceptions) don't make sense at all, and the jokes in them fall completely flat. They're not good anti-jokes either. If someone said something like it in a social situation it would be followed by an awkward silence.
The vibe check and the time spent were really cool though. Super interesting. I would have loved to see those expanded.
I don't mean to be negative. The project is cool. I just wish it would put its focus on the valuable parts, rather than the things it is weak at. I guess this is my 45 % pedantic, 25 % contrarian, 20 % analytical self speaking.
> I feel like it has picked up on certain keywords and then just rolled with its own stereotypes of what those keywords represent, rather than actually taking a good look at what I think. A roast works because the roaster has clearly spent time and effort and care understanding the person roasted. This is way too shallow for that.
Yeah. It picks one random thing from one comment and turns into a lifestyle.
Mine on the other hand could not be more accurate: https://hn-wrapped.kadoa.com/MarcelOlsz
That's about how it came across for me as well: ignoring my actual content and joking about generalizations related to key words.
Project is cool overall, love the xkcd-like comic idea—but prompting and/or model-selection could use some work. I'd like to take a crack at tuning it myself :)
I found the xkcd comic for myself funny enough to chuckle but I had the same feelings as you about the text
It also appears highly biased towards recency as much of mine was roasting a topic I had only spoken of once and recently
Appreciate the feedback, will try to iterate it to greatness further. It's still a bit hit or miss, but I've made a few improvements:
- improved prompts with your feedback
- added post/comment shuffling to remove recency bias
- tried to fix the speech attribution errors in the xkcd
Perhaps it should also avoid putting too much emphasis on several comments to the same story: there was a story about VAT changes in Denmark, where I participated with several comments; but the generator decided that I apparently had a high focus vat, when I just wanted to provide some clarifying context to that story. I wonder how comments are weighed, is it individually or per story?
Specifically this roast:
> You have commented about the specific nuances of Danish VAT and accounting system hardcoding at least four times, proving you are the only person on Earth who finds tax infrastructure more exciting than the books being taxed.
Yeah, but I did it on the same story (i.e. context).
Though the other details it picked up, I cannot really argue with: the VAT bit just stood out to me.
That’s a poorly written roast.