MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKAnmm+tbPMdP8ccrJ-o_LVgC6ADdOEoh2=J+zyWNLab6B3+_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <c7320b248d8b6294a325f87fa9ae98ebbd68f185.camel@cybertec.at>
 <aae1616a4ebf8eb129b2510c75d4c335a028d623.camel@cybertec.at>
 <CAApHDvrsbj-hCUhB=N+Hbzm2e0a5AjCe6MbB3KMgpDEF15q5CQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKAnmm+v7Rby=QKs-TCDjr42tjazcndJOPw_6pZVFadU7v9rWw@mail.gmail.com> <54c731a5825ba6da520ada38597c03605aba6b09.camel@cybertec.at>
In-Reply-To: <54c731a5825ba6da520ada38597c03605aba6b09.camel@cybertec.at>
From: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 10:38:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKAnmmJEZBCAb2E1BgCrTHKXu2TYqKOgTkANWbQ1mCLZBLeNgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, 
	pgsql-general <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002d46be061deb21a2"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKAnmmJEZBCAb2E1BgCrTHKXu2TYqKOgTkANWbQ1mCLZBLeNgQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--0000000000002d46be061deb21a2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 3:22=E2=80=AFAM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec=
.at>
wrote:

> 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?
>

Well, we can't 100% prove it, but we can have ethical guidelines. We
already have other guidelines that are open to interpretation (and plenty
of planet posts bend the rules quite often, IMO, but that's another post).


> Why not say that authors who repeatedly post grossly counterfactual or
> misleading content can be banned?
>

Banned is a strong word, but certainly they can have the posts removed, and
receive warnings from the planet admins. If the admins can point to a
policy, that helps. Perhaps as you hint at, we need a policy to not just
discourage AI-generated things, but also wrong/misleading things in general
(which was not much of a problem before LLMs arrived, to be honest).

Cheers,
Greg

--0000000000002d46be061deb21a2
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 3:22=E2=80=AFAM L=
aurenz Albe &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:laurenz.albe@cybertec.at">laurenz.albe@cy=
bertec.at</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid=
 rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I have no problem with that definition,=
 but it is useless as a policy:<br>
Even in a blog with glaring AI nonsense in it, how can you prove that the<b=
r>
author did not actually edit and improve other significant parts of the tex=
t?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, we can&#39;t 100% prove it, bu=
t we can have ethical guidelines. We already have other guidelines that are=
 open to interpretation (and plenty of planet posts bend the rules quite of=
ten, IMO, but that&#39;s another post).</div><div>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px =
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Why not say that authors who repeatedly post grossly counterfactual or<br>
misleading content can be banned?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Banne=
d is a strong word, but certainly they can have the posts removed, and rece=
ive warnings from the planet admins. If the admins can point to a policy, t=
hat helps. Perhaps as you hint at, we need a policy to not just discourage =
AI-generated things, but also wrong/misleading things in general (which was=
 not much of a problem before LLMs arrived, to be honest).</div><div><br></=
div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Greg</div><div>=C2=A0<br></div></div></div>

--0000000000002d46be061deb21a2--