Contrarian investing quotes and improving text for social media content
Loading data from Talking to Chatbots Dataset reddgr/talking-to-chatbots-chats …
😎 “Buy when there is blood in the streets” is a famous quote used in the context of stock markets. It makes reference to contrarian investing, particularly when the crowds are bearish. Are there any good quotes for the opposite case? When the crowds are bullish, and a contrarian investor would lean towards “selling”
🤖 While the famous quote “Buy when there is blood in the streets” is often associated with contrarian investing during bearish times, there isn’t a widely recognized quote that directly mirrors it for selling during bullish periods. However, you could consider a phrase like “Sell when everyone is dancing” as a way to capture the idea of selling when the market sentiment is overly bullish and speculative, signifying a potential bubble or overvaluation. Keep in mind that the world of investing and finance is filled with various aphorisms and sayings, and new ones may emerge over time to capture such sentiments.😎 Can you improve the writing of this Alt text for a screen capture?
News article posted at Business Insider in November 2013. Screen capture features a chart of the S&P 500 index chart from 1980 to 2013 (growth from 100 range to 1,800 range) and the following text in red: “Guess which way the line is likely to go next!”. Next to the text, three red arrows. One pointing at an upwards trend labeled A. Another pointing horizontal (B). And a third one pointing at a downwards trend (C). Before and after the chart, the following two paragraphs:
The stock market is at a peak, which is exactly what you’d expect in a zero-interest environment.
We’ve had five years of solid growth in stocks. People who have invested in stocks in the last five years now feel very, very rich. What could possibly go wrong?
🤖 Alt text for a screen capture:😎 Can you improve the Alt text for this screen capture from Twitter?
“Screenshot of a Business Insider news article from November 2013. The image displays a line chart depicting the S&P 500 index’s performance from 1980 to 2013, showing growth from a range of 100 to 1,800. In red text above the chart, it reads, ‘Guess which way the line is likely to go next!’ Three red arrows accompany the text: one pointing upward (labeled A), another horizontal (labeled B), and a third pointing downward (labeled C). Preceding the chart are the following two paragraphs:
1. ‘The stock market is currently at its peak, a predictable outcome in a zero-interest rate environment.’
2. ‘Over the past five years, the stock market has seen consistent growth. Investors who entered the market during this period have experienced substantial wealth accumulation. But, what risks lie ahead?'”
Post by Business Insider, November 3, 2013:
Here’s The Evidence That The Tech Sector Is In A Massive Bubble read.bi/1b4ly0E
Reply by @dgromero, November 5, 2013:
Social bullshit is in a massive bubble, not “tech”. “@businessinsider: read.bi/1b4ly0E”
2nd reply by @dgromero, November 5, 2013:
@businessinsider @Jim_Edwards Creating a microblogging platform today is easier than opening a bar. Why is that named “tech sector”?
🤖 Improved Alt text for the Twitter screen capture:😎 Rewrite just describing what is seen in the screen capture. No need to interpret the conversation and use terms such as agree or disagree.
“Twitter conversation from November 5, 2013, initiated by a Business Insider post from November 3, 2013, titled ‘Here’s The Evidence That The Tech Sector Is In A Massive Bubble’ with a link to the article read.bi/1b4ly0E.
The first reply is by @dgromero, who disagrees, saying, ‘Social bullshit is in a massive bubble, not “tech”.’ The second reply by @dgromero questions the classification of social media as part of the ‘tech sector,’ stating, ‘@businessinsider @Jim_Edwards Creating a microblogging platform today is easier than opening a bar. Why is that named “tech sector”?'”
This description provides a concise summary of the Twitter conversation and the context of the tweets.
🤖 Description of the Twitter screen capture:😎 Identify grammar or orthography errors in this text (please ignore the hashtags and assume they are normal text):
“Screen capture of a Twitter conversation dated November 5, 2013. The original post by Business Insider from November 3, 2013, shares an article titled ‘Here’s The Evidence That The Tech Sector Is In A Massive Bubble’ with a link (read.bi/1b4ly0E).
Two replies follow:
1. A reply from @dgromero, challenging the classification of “tech” as in a bubble.
2. A second reply by @dgromero, questioning why microblogging platforms are considered part of the “tech sector.”
Any social media user, monetizing or not, needs to know it’s someone else’s platform and discretionary rules. Otherwise, anyone can host a website, upload their videos/stuff there and try to monetize. One great risk of the social media #monetization fad and #influencerbubble derived from the #creatoreconomy is that some people are mislead into believing publishing on social media platforms can be considered a job. Though it can be very lucrative, using social media in exchange for money is a transactional business governed by a private company’s ToS, so they can never be considered a job. Jobs are regulated by centuries old laws and their management is an integral piece of any market economy. Social media is good, but the bubble needs to pop before it’s sustainable again.
🤖 Here are the grammar and orthography errors in the text:😎 In most cases, there is no mistake and you say a sentence must be replaced with the same sentence. For example:
1. “it’s” should be “it’s” (contraction of “it is”).
2. “someone else’s” should have an apostrophe: “someone else’s.”
3. “anyone can host a website” should be “anyone can host a website, upload their videos/stuff there, and try to monetize.”
4. “mislead” should be “misled.”
5. “creatoreconomy” should be “creator economy.”
6. “can never be considered a job” should be “cannot be considered a job.”
7. “centuries old” should be “centuries-old.”
8. “before it’s sustainable again” should be “before it’s sustainable again.”
Here’s the revised text with these errors corrected:
“Any social media user, monetizing or not, needs to know it’s someone else’s platform and discretionary rules. Otherwise, anyone can host a website, upload their videos/stuff there, and try to monetize. One great risk of the social media #monetization fad and #influencerbubble derived from the #creator economy is that some people are misled into believing publishing on social media platforms can be considered a job. Though it can be very lucrative, using social media in exchange for money is a transactional business governed by a private company’s ToS, so they cannot be considered a job. Jobs are regulated by centuries-old laws, and their management is an integral piece of any market economy. Social media is good, but the bubble needs to pop before it’s sustainable again.”
“it’s” should be “it’s” (contraction of “it is”).
2. “someone else’s” should have an apostrophe: “someone else’s.”
Can you acknowledge this error in the response and review it?
🤖 I apologize for the oversight in my previous response. You are correct; there was no mistake in those sentences. Here’s a revised review of the text with only the necessary corrections:😎 Review this text and fix important readability issues making the bare minimum changes. Please don’t creatively modify the text by replacing words with synonyms, for example. Also, keep the hashtags and treat them as normal words:
1. “mislead” should be “misled.”
2. “creatoreconomy” should be “creator economy.”
3. “can never be considered a job” should be “cannot be considered a job.”
4. “centuries old” should be “centuries-old.”
5. “before it’s sustainable again” should be “before it’s sustainable again.”
Thank you for pointing out the error, and I appreciate your understanding.
One great risk of the social media #monetization fad and #influencerbubble derived from the #creatoreconomy is that some people are misled into believing publishing on social media platforms can be considered a “job”, often euphemistically hidden by one trendy, particularly on LinkedIn, buzzword: #sidehustle
Though it can be very lucrative, using social media in exchange for money is a transactional business governed by a private company’s ToS, so they will never be considered a job. Jobs are regulated by centuries-old laws and their management is an integral piece of any market economy. Social media is good, but the bubble needs to pop before it’s sustainable again.
🤖 Here’s the revised text with improved readability while making minimal changes:😎 The last paragraph modifies the original text too much. There is no need for that. Can you explain why, even if I specifically asked to not be creative, you changed the text that much?
“One significant risk of the social media #monetization trend and #influencerbubble associated with the #creatoreconomy is that some people are misled into believing that publishing on social media platforms can be considered a ‘job.’ This notion is often euphemistically obscured by a trendy buzzword, especially on LinkedIn: #sidehustle.
Although it can be quite profitable, using social media for monetary transactions falls under a private company’s Terms of Service (ToS), so it will never be classified as a job. Jobs are governed by centuries-old laws, and their management is an integral part of any market economy. Social media has its merits, but the bubble needs to burst before it becomes sustainable once more.”
🤖 I apologize for the unnecessary modification in the last paragraph; it was not aligned with your request to make the bare minimum changes while addressing readability issues. Thank you for pointing that out. Here’s a revised version of the text that maintains the original content more closely:😎 Is there a good alternative to the term “otherwise” here? Try to understand the content of the sentence. I’m not entirely sure about the nuances of the word otherwise here:
“One significant risk of the social media #monetization trend and #influencerbubble linked to the #creatoreconomy is that some people are misled into believing that publishing on social media platforms can be considered a ‘job,’ often euphemistically obscured by a trendy buzzword, especially on LinkedIn: #sidehustle.
Though it can be highly profitable, using social media for monetary transactions falls under a private company’s Terms of Service (ToS), so it will never be regarded as a job. Jobs are governed by centuries-old laws, and their management is an integral part of any market economy. Social media is valuable, but the bubble needs to burst before it’s sustainable again.”
Any social media user, monetizing or not, needs to know it’s someone else’s platform and rules. Otherwise, anyone can host a website, upload their videos/stuff there and try to monetize.
🤖 In this context, you can use the word “or else” as an alternative to “otherwise.” Here’s the revised sentence:😎 Does otherwise sound OK considering both options (monetizing on social media and owning a website) are compatible and can coexist?
“Any social media user, monetizing or not, needs to know it’s someone else’s platform and rules. Or else, anyone can host a website, upload their videos/stuff there and try to monetize.”
🤖 Yes, “otherwise” is suitable in this context. It implies a potential consequence or outcome that could occur if social media users are not aware of the situation, which aligns with the idea that both options (monetizing on social media and owning a website) can coexist but may have different implications or rules.
Hugging Face Dataset Metrics
All the conversation prompts, responses, and metrics are available to download and explore on Hugging Face dataset reddgr/talking-to-chatbots-chats: