* The Wanderer <[email protected]> [261102 07:22]: > I have been reading the discussion, and noticing what looks to me like a > key aspect of the perspective of at least some of the people who have > objections to the "uploads to NEW automatically trigger LLM processing" > change which those defending that change do not appear to be addressing. > > That perspective appears to be represented fairly explicitly in the > above, but I think the aspect I've been noticing may still not be > explicitly clear - and if I'm right both about what it is and that it is > key to the perspective, I think it may be worth addressing directly.
I think you have articulated a key aspect of the feelings of some receivers of the LLM output. However, I don't believe it takes into account what appears to me to be the motivation of the DFSG team. This is a clear case of two disparate points of view. When this thread started, I believed that the DFSG team intended to use the output from the LLM as one input in their review process, regardless of whether the submitter used it or not. If I am correct, they felt "if we are going to produce this output anyway, let's give it to the submitter; maybe they will find it useful and will make changes and reupload without our needing to do the initial manual review." If this is the case, then it is unnecessary for a submitter to feel that they have any control over whether or not an LLM is used when they upload. However, they have every right to not want to see that not-human-reviewed output. What the DFSG team did not seem to take into account, however, was the substantial controversial nature of the most recent GR. I feel they should have known that there would be people who would truly _not_ want to see the direct output from the LLM, at least not without human review first. There have been several very good suggestions on this thread for ways to address this. The one that I think is the best (if the DFSG team is going to use the LLM output anyway) is to make the LLM output available on the NEW queue tracker. At the very least, the emails to submitters should be made opt-in rather than opt-out. If this had been done from the start, this thread would not exist. ...Marvin
