public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
To: Greg Sabino Mullane <[email protected]>
To: David Rowley <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-general <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 09:22:10 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKAnmm+v7Rby=QKs-TCDjr42tjazcndJOPw_6pZVFadU7v9rWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKAnmm+tbPMdP8ccrJ-o_LVgC6ADdOEoh2=J+zyWNLab6B3+_Q@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAApHDvrsbj-hCUhB=N+Hbzm2e0a5AjCe6MbB3KMgpDEF15q5CQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKAnmm+v7Rby=QKs-TCDjr42tjazcndJOPw_6pZVFadU7v9rWw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 2024-07-18 at 10:25 -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > But to what degree exactly should that be allowed?
>
> Somewhat ironically, here's a distinction chatgpt and I came up with:
>
> LLM-generated content: Content where the substantial part of the text is directly
> created by LLMs without significant human alteration or editing.
I have no problem with that definition, but it is useless as a policy:
Even in a blog with glaring AI nonsense in it, how can you prove that the
author did not actually edit and improve other significant parts of the text?
Why not say that authors who repeatedly post grossly counterfactual or
misleading content can be banned?
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
view thread (12+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox