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>
 <CAKAnmmJEZBCAb2E1BgCrTHKXu2TYqKOgTkANWbQ1mCLZBLeNgQ@mail.gmail.com> <33fd1eed05bb498e7110407e1d738873476844f2.camel@cybertec.at>
In-Reply-To: <33fd1eed05bb498e7110407e1d738873476844f2.camel@cybertec.at>
From: Avinash Vallarapu <avinash.vallarapu@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 12:45:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAN0Tuje9YiWPhECpuF1sUvENHkYjMVHoGq50aCEowBCB04wmFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Cc: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, 
	pgsql-general <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006ab696061dece505"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAN0Tuje9YiWPhECpuF1sUvENHkYjMVHoGq50aCEowBCB04wmFA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--0000000000006ab696061dece505
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

As someone who has taken days to publish each blog upon so many reviews,
corrections and edits while
attempting to make it as best/informative and as perfect as possible, it
might seem slightly frustrating when
we see some AI generated content, especially when it is misleading readers.

However, I do agree with Lawrence that it is impossible to prove whether it
is written by AI or a human.
AI can make mistakes and it might mistakenly point out that a blog is
written by AI (which I know is difficult to implement).

I see Moderators spending some time reviewing content and accepting or
warning if it is not related to Postgres.
AI may be adopted to help us score whether an article is related to
Postgres and decline the submission/blog feed.
But, it is very impossible to use AI or some strategy to identify whether
it is written by AI or human.

People may also use AI generated Images in their blogs, and they may be
meaningful for their article.
Is it only the content or also the images ?  It might get too complicated
while implementing some rules.

Ultimately, Humans do make mistakes and we shouldn't discourage people
assuming it is AI that made that mistake.


On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 11:51=E2=80=AFAM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cyberte=
c.at>
wrote:

> On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 10:38 -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > > Why not say that authors who repeatedly post grossly counterfactual o=
r
> > > misleading content can be banned?
> >
> > Perhaps as you hint at, we need a policy to not just discourage
> AI-generated
> > things, but also wrong/misleading things in general
>
> I have been known to make mistakes in my blogs...
> We shouldn't discourage people who happen to blog something wrong.
> That's why I used strong verbiage like "grossly counterfactual".
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>
>
>

--=20
Regards,
Avinash Vallarapu

--0000000000006ab696061dece505
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div>As someone w=
ho has taken days to publish each blog upon so many reviews, corrections an=
d edits while <br>attempting to make it as best/informative and as perfect =
as possible, it might seem slightly frustrating when <br>we see some AI gen=
erated content, especially when it is misleading readers.<div><br></div><di=
v>However, I do agree with Lawrence that it is impossible to prove whether =
it is written by AI or a human.</div><div>AI can make mistakes and it might=
 mistakenly point out that a blog is written by AI (which I know is difficu=
lt to implement).</div><div><br></div><div>I see Moderators spending some t=
ime reviewing=C2=A0content and accepting or warning if it is not related to=
 Postgres.</div><div>AI may be adopted to help us score whether an article =
is related=C2=A0to Postgres and decline the submission/blog feed.</div><div=
>But, it is very impossible to use AI or some strategy to identify whether =
it is written by AI or human.<br></div><div><br></div><div>People may also =
use AI generated Images in their blogs, and they may be meaningful for thei=
r article.</div><div>Is it only the content or also the images ?=C2=A0 It m=
ight get too complicated while implementing some rules.=C2=A0</div><div><br=
></div><div>Ultimately, Humans do make mistakes and we shouldn&#39;t discou=
rage people assuming it is AI that made that mistake.=C2=A0</div><div><br><=
/div><div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div di=
r=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 11:51=E2=80=AFAM Lau=
renz Albe &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:laurenz.albe@cybertec.at">laurenz.albe@cybe=
rtec.at</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-lef=
t:1ex">On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 10:38 -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; Why not say that authors who repeatedly post grossly counterfactu=
al or<br>
&gt; &gt; misleading content can be banned?<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Perhaps as you hint at, we need a policy to not just discourage AI-gen=
erated<br>
&gt; things, but also wrong/misleading things in general<br>
<br>
I have been known to make mistakes in my blogs...<br>
We shouldn&#39;t discourage people who happen to blog something wrong.<br>
That&#39;s why I used strong verbiage like &quot;grossly counterfactual&quo=
t;.<br>
<br>
Yours,<br>
Laurenz Albe<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div><span class=3D"gmail_si=
gnature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature"><d=
iv dir=3D"ltr"><div>Regards,<br>Avinash Vallarapu</div></div></div></div>

--0000000000006ab696061dece505--