On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 11:08 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 21:05 -0600, Oskari Pirhonen wrote: > > > What about cases where someone, say, doesn't have an excellent grasp of > > > English and decides to use, for example, ChatGPT to aid in writing > > > documentation/comments (not code) and puts a note somewhere explicitly > > > mentioning what was AI-generated so that someone else can take a closer > > > look? > > > > > > I'd personally not be the biggest fan of this if it wasn't in something > > > like a PR or ml post where it could be reviewed before being made final. > > > But the most impportant part IMO would be being up-front about it. > > > I'm afraid that wouldn't help much. From my experiences, it would be > > less effort for us to help writing it from scratch, than trying to > > untangle whatever verbose shit ChatGPT generates. Especially that > > a person with poor grasp of the language could have trouble telling > > whether the generated text is actually meaningful. > > But where do we draw the line? Are translation tools like DeepL allowed? > I don't see much of a copyright issue for these.
I have a strong suspicion that these translation tools are trained on copyrighted translations of books and other copyrighted material. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
