[coldtea]

>A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity.

It shouldn't have to do the latter. That's clickbait. People are either organically curious about what actually happened or they are not. If they are not, they shouldn't be "stimulated" with BS. That "media/advetising" attitude is the cause behind many issues with science in society today.

[sillysaurusx]

Ehh. We’ve been here long enough to both know that there’s a balance. $10 says the mods won’t change the title to the suggested one, precisely because of this balance.

It’s not about clickbaiting. The whole reason the research is getting funded in the first place is to try to find the link.

[coldtea]

>It’s not about clickbaiting. The whole reason the research is getting funded in the first place is to try to find the link.

Tieing grants to mass media popularity of research papers is an even bigger problem.

[johnnyanmac]

Grants are ALWAYS tiered based on biased political factors. That's why they are "grants". Someone heavily invested in finding answers is willing to give money away to achieve that end. In this case, the government is heavily invested on ideas that can stimulate their economy.

I don't even know what can be done here. Take money out of acedemia? Maybe in a post scarcity world.

[kshacker]

We really need "saved you a click" version of hacker news. Same UI just title recommended by users

[spdif899]

The Artifact news reader app on iOS uses this premise to provide one of the truly useful implementations of LLMs I've seen in the wild so far. You can mark a title as clickbait, and the app will use AI to generate a new title, usually one that is more usefully descriptive.

It's not perfect, sometimes the generated title is still totally clickbait and I've seen a couple instances of it being completely wrong or hallucinating a detail. But generally it's pretty neat.

The app also uses the same tech to summarize articles into a few bullets which I don't use as often but is also neat.

[johnnyanmac]

>It shouldn't have to do the latter. That's clickbait.

clickbait generally has an implication of incorrectly representing the content. romanticized titles aren't always clickbait, and I wouldn't say this is exactly a sensationalist tite like how others may say "We're on the first road to curing Alzheimer's disease".

>People are either organically curious about what actually happened or they are not.

it's a prisoner's dilemma. It's not necessarily zero sum, but attention is somewhat finite. And for some sites, the result isn't a more comfy high quality community. It just dies out, and that benefits no one.