feat: updated prompt with author and allComments

[sshivaditya2019]

Resolves #97

• Adds a updated prompt which takes in allComments.
• Updated the comments to evaluate object with the authors of the comment

[sshivaditya2019]

Updated Relevance scores, with scoring for img output.html

[0x4007]

Consider using o1-mini? I have access to it now from our org key. I am not sure if it is better for this kind of task. I am under the impression that it is more impressive when passing in minimal information/context.

Given that we are passing in all the context, maybe 4o is superior.

Also you need to program it to respond with json (not via the prompt, but by passing in the config to the openai object)

[sshivaditya2019]

Consider using o1-mini? I have access to it now from our org key. I am not sure if it is better for this kind of task. I am under the impression that it is more impressive when passing in minimal information/context.

Given that we are passing in all the context, maybe 4o is superior.

Also you need to program it to respond with json (not via the prompt, but by passing in the config to the openai object)

Could you please share the key for o1 through some other channel with a billing limit. Just letting you know it would be a bit expensive with o1 models.

[0x4007]

I don't think it has a limit I just quickly made from my phone and dm you key on telegram.

[sshivaditya2019]

Also you need to program it to respond with json (not via the prompt, but by passing in the config to the openai object)

response_format: { type: "json_object" }

You mean this one ? The prompt uses that already. I think o1 does not support response_format in output.

[0x4007]

Okay 4o maybe is best

[sshivaditya2019]

Comments Evaluated:

{
        "id": 1948916343,
        "comment": "pavlovcik i think we need to update a bit the readme\r\n![image_2024-02-16_131036879](https://github.com/ubiquibot/comment-incentives/assets/41552663/41516d66-4666-47d7-9efe-517fb26293dd)\r\ndm what to whom?",
        "author": "molecula451"
      },
      {
        "id": 1948989989,
        "comment": "let us know when done",
        "author": "molecula451"
      },
      {
        "id": 1949195772,
        "comment": "https://github.com/ubiquibot/comment-incentives/actions/runs/7935268560 invalid input sounds unexpected @gitcoindev ??",
        "author": "molecula451"
      },
      {
        "id": 1949564869,
        "comment": "@pavlovcik permitted with hard debug (tho no funds in the private key)",
        "author": "molecula451"
      },
      {
        "id": 1949635137,
        "comment": "pavlovcik i re-generated the X25519 to trigger the permit, what you don't understand? using a private key i own, but also did many commits to reach the root cause",
        "author": "molecula451"
      },
      {
        "id": 1949639196,
        "comment": "sure thing",
        "author": "molecula451"
      }

GPT 4o Output:

[
  {
    "id": 1948916343,
    "connection_score": 0.6
  },
  {
    "id": 1948989989,
    "connection_score": 0.5
  },
  {
    "id": 1949195772,
    "connection_score": 0.7
  },
  {
    "id": 1949564869,
    "connection_score": 0.8
  },
  {
    "id": 1949635137,
    "connection_score": 0.9
  },
  {
    "id": 1949639196,
    "connection_score": 0.3
  }
]

o1 Mini Output:

{
  "1948930217": 0.8,
  "1949201722": 0.7,
  "1949203681": 0.9,
  "1949633751": 0.0,
  "1949639054": 0.3,
  "1949642845": 0.6
}

I think GPT 4o appear to be more on point, than o1 mini.

[sshivaditya2019]

I think this is good to go. Let me know if there are any other changes apart from the merge conflicts. For QA output.html

[0x4007]

Well you also spelled related wrong but yeah you can fix the merge conflict and your spelling. Needs to pass CI before merging.

[sshivaditya2019]

@0x4007 Could you please approve the workflow runs ?

[0x4007]

It's not stable. Needs exponential backoff

[sshivaditya2019]

It's not stable. Needs exponential backoff

CI should be passing now. Jest passes for me locally Workflow Run. @0x4007 Could you the workflows again ?