>>>>> 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. Ulrich [1] https://www.deepl.com/translator
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
