[mosquitobiten]

One big post can have a bigger reply counter-arguing every point 1b1. It would be nice if the arguments go back and forth, basically segmenting the post and the replies into multiple lines of dialog, rather than feeling like you are listening to a speech.

[sebastiennight]

Wait... do you mean, quoting the original (or parent) poster in their own voice when there's a quote?

That seems less natural. I think what I can do though, is turn quotes into actual quotes, eg. turning

> One big post can have a bigger reply counter-arguing every point 1b1

into:

"Look; you said 'One big post can have a bigger reply counter-arguing every point 1b1'"

[mosquitobiten]

>Wait... do you mean, quoting the original (or parent) poster in their own voice when there's a quote?

yeah, I think what I'm getting at is when there is a big argumentative post crossing the line from chit-chat to speech, break out of the structure of the website, let the LLM get the arguments out and connect them to the counter-arguments and turn it into a back a forth with shorter dialog lines, without repeating too much or one person talking for very long.

Also I agree, the LLM should be free to transform or add dialog how it sees fit so it feels more natural but always keeping it true to what is written.

[sebastiennight]

In this app, the process runs entirely in the browser and has no LLM calls at all, so we don't have the ability to rewrite the conversation (other than performing regexes or other crude operations on the text of a comment, which is how links are turned into "See the link I posted in the thread").

I also think it's incredibly difficult (even with an LLM) to render properly a multi-turn multi-user conversation without sticking to the actual hierarchy of the thread. We would probably run into the "summarize the thread and lose nuance" problem again.