Kpt is an OSS tool for Kubernetes packaging. It uses a standard format to bundle, publish, customize, update, and apply configuration manifests. Kpt operates like kubectl, providing additional functionality to prune and delete configuration.
Single-purpose accounts aren't allowed on HN, nor are bots (if that's what this is). Also, it's not good to post summaries routinely. We want HN users to actually read articles. The less work readers do, the shallower and more predictable the comments tend to get.
I've banned this account, but if you want to use it to participate in the community as a regular member, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and let us know.
We can deliver coherent stories. We recently published https://notrealnews.net. We're committed to improving journalistic integrity in the information age.
What is "real news"? Anyone with some Wordpress experience and a domain can make their own "news site" and publish "real news".
I don't want to confirm or deny this: Singapore, Russia, China, and other countries are already doing this at a far more malicious and massive scale.
We're at least hoping people would understand how "AI generated news articles" look like, so one day they can spot them and know that the news you're reading is not real news.
The "what is real news?", "truth isn't truth!", "it's impossible to know anything for sure, so nothing can be said to be true or false!" arguments are kind of played out these days.
Giuliani: And when you tell me that, you know, he should testify because he’s going to tell the truth and he shouldn’t worry, well that’s so silly because it’s somebody’s version of the truth. Not the truth ...
Todd: Truth is truth. I don’t mean to go like ―
Giuliani: No, it isn’t truth. Truth isn’t truth. The president of the United States says, “I didn’t —”
Todd: Truth isn’t truth? Mr. Mayor, do you realize, what, I, I, I —
It's one thing to bring up the topic for discussion with some examples, it's another to create an entire site constantly generating bogus stories just to prove a point. I don't find the topic distasteful, I find the exposition irresponsible.
If you give us a title: "Woman breaks world record in March of 2020". We'll give you a pretty decent article about it. So we're not rewriting what's been written; we're generating content itself.
We not working with anyone at the moment. When we do we'll announce it publicly and work with an ethics team to ensure we're only supporting good actors (we know bad actors are on the look out for services like us).
Thanks!
I promised some people that I'd write a blog post (and I will soon), but here's the basics:
Article lifecycle goes through job queues. This was because: wanted to learn queues :) and because I'm running this operation with Colab to create the content (so in the event Colab fails or goes down, I'll be able to requeue in my dashboard).
Source is just headlines. I just take headlines from RSS feeds and generated both articles and headlines based off that.
I used Ghost. I could've used WP, but haven't used WP before.
1. I'm no journalist, but I'm fairly sure there's some news sites that break the news first and then others follow (either through primary or secondary sources)
2. I haven't implemented fact-checking algos. At the moment I'm not planning to use AI for it, just simple cross referencing (not finalized).
3. When we do start momentum, we'll get on board a highly specialized ethics team and safety team. We're not a state actor or influenced by anyone so we're just creating gimmick-y articles on the internet for now. We'll eventually combat those issues if and when similar services pop up.
One reason we want to be first is that we know state actors are going to pop up soon. Singapore, Russia, Philippines, the list goes on for which they want something like us to control propaganda. We're hoping we'll be able to gain enough momentum before they start (or get further along than they already are at) to set a good solid standard. But with all things, this will take time and deliberation.
In a world where disinformation and clickbait journalism is prevalent, we want to allow content creators to have that same rapid pace (pace of how quickly they make content) but make sure it’s factual/credible and demonstrates value.
Here's how we do this:
Suppose a journalist as X amount of time to create an article (we're talking about lower-tier/repetitive journalism, which consists of a majority of journalism) They have two options:
1. Write some relatively bogus article to drive clicks
2. We write a majority of their article within seconds and they spend the X amount of time editing our article/regenerating it. We're planning on implementing fact-checking algos in end so after they're done editing, we ensure the content is legit.
We don't want to replace journalism. We just want to automate lower tier journalism (clickbait, repetitive sports articles) and hope they utilize their time ensuring the content is substantive to their audience.
> (we're talking about lower-tier/repetitive journalism, which consists of a majority of journalism)
The majority of content farms maybe. The majority of journalism is interviews, local events, editorial pieces, analysis, obituaries, event listings, etc. I work with dozens of news organizations and you do not seem to fully understand how a legitimate news business is run. Your tech may be interesting but in my opinion your tool is more harmful to journalism than it is helpful.
I am going to resell it to small businesses so that they can publish a neverending stream of nonsense keyword-laden articles to improve their SEO. Hotels, restaurants, medical practices. Anyone with cash really.
That only holds up if X remains constant. Option #1 is already considered acceptable by these low-quality sites, so why wouldn't they instead choose:
3. Automatically write a relatively bogus article to drive clicks.
For a business model that already works for Option 1, Option 3 is the same thing with less overhead.
I do see how this can greatly enable propaganda / fake-news creation however. Time spent editing an article doesn't inherently mean time spent making it more accurate or reality-based; it can just as easily mean time spent twisting words to imply a propaganda goal. This may not be your goal, but it's an inevitable consequence of the technology.
Reposting this comment just in case it goes down again:
This is an article taken directly from my site:
Title: Will Apple, Facebook or Google Control The AR Momentum?
Article: “I wouldn’t be surprised if one day or another somebody says, ‘This is the future of gaming,'” reports Facebook’s head of virtual reality Omid Kordestani. And Kordestani admitted his past job of building from within the company is atypical for a big CEO (typical of Facebook) who may need to shape the future of a business outside the core team. He may find out how much of the potential of AR is already in its top app Facebook, where developers can shoot 3D models of stuffed animals or preschool objects in front of anyone’s faces, and how deeply Google was disrupted when its failed to move fast enough on VR before Facebook entered it.
But what it’s possible for Facebook and Apple to do is to lead the charge to develop a hardware- and/or software-independent AR ecosystem of platforms and apps. An Android-powered AR headset, which seems like it’s on its way, could eventually compete with Google Cardboard, and maybe provide its own open-source AR platform. Why not have Windows Embedded system OEMs build AR goggles and similar headsets, as they already sell hardware that can run augmented reality apps?
That could attract hardware companies like Dell, Asus, HP and Lenovo, as well as game consoles like Microsoft’s Xbox and Sony’s PlayStation. If Microsoft can muscle AR technology directly into the living room, it could make Oculus Rift obsolete. It could also entice developers away from Google’s $99 Daydream View AR headset which depends on smartphone technology, by throwing its weight behind hardware based on Windows 10. Meanwhile, Apple could cut out the middleman by making a standalone AR headset, although it already has a separate ARKit platform to create AR-themed apps for the iPhone and iPad. That way it could create a high-end AR headset for hardcore users like the kind of top manufacturers like LG, Sony, Samsung and Asus produce for their televisions and other gear.
At the same time, we’ll probably be stuck with Google’s Cardboard and Facebook’s Cardboard for a while. Google Cardboard’s track record is decent, and the ability to use Cardboard makes it easy to download and use a few AR apps that show other content than just pictures or blocks of text. Cardboard also does an excellent job of getting the platform out to more people than any other headset, with 45.8 million devices activated. But that’s less than half the number of Android-powered phones in the world as Android was running in early 2017. And from a hardware perspective, Google has a big advantage over Facebook, with plenty of current smartphones on its Cardboard list, including phones from Chinese manufacturers Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo, and Coolpad.
Then again, Google’s Cardboard headsets have started rolling out to more devices, and Google has been open about the likelihood of an Android-powered Cardboard headset, touting the dual displays and better cameras that now ship with the Pixel. While the hardware definitely isn’t there yet for it to take the lead in AR, Google seems to be confident it can make it happen and give users the compelling AR app experiences they want.
Meanwhile, neither Apple nor Facebook has the fragmentation problems with apps or hardware needed to dominate AR, which could be killer differentiators. Apple, by the way, has super serious ambitions to produce its own AR technology. The growing possibility that Apple is making such a headset may finally make it uncomfortable for Apple to cede this killer platform to Google.
When a platform war erupts like iPhone and Android, it’s going to take everyone’s best devices to achieve victory. There may be companies that switch allegiances, but that would only make it more possible for Apple, Facebook, and Google to enter it just as one platform would. But how long will that last, and will Apple, Facebook or Microsoft be the ones to seize the battlefield?
I don't touch/favor "good" articles. I just posted the latest one at the time.
Kpt is an OSS tool for Kubernetes packaging. It uses a standard format to bundle, publish, customize, update, and apply configuration manifests. Kpt operates like kubectl, providing additional functionality to prune and delete configuration.