Due to the fact that it's a publication that represents Apache Airflow - Does it make sense to put such every new entry to a vote here? (could be lazy-consensus) That way we'll be able to somewhat monitor the entropy, and raise an objection if anything in the text needs our attention.
Shahar On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 1:30 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > Hello here, > > TL;DR; We have this very nice Airflow Publication > https://medium.com/apache-airflow - and recently we had some submissions > that were clearly Gen AI generated and provided no value and I think we > need to agree on some general acceptance criteria. > > We had quite a few submissions submitted recently and mostly those articles > were in the form of: > > * Problem description > * What is important > * What are the solutions > * Summary/ Conclusions > > Or another recurring pattern: > > * What is Apache Airflow > * Key Features > * Getting started > * Installation > * initialization > * Core concepts > * Diving deeper > * Best Practices > * Conclusions > > All listed as bullet points describing a very generic way of dealing with > the problems or just extracting stuff from airflow documentation in the > form of bullet points and short paragraphs. Very typical "structure" for > AI-generated content. > > Together with Briana we decided to reject those publications - they were > really not adding any value and iMHO they "increase entropy" of Airflow > knowledge rather than decrease it. > > I thought (after doing it) that it would be great to agree that this is > the right thing to do and generally agree to some very general acceptance > criteria for those publications. > > In the past we generally accepted pretty much all kinds of articles - > articles for beginners, advanced topics after a brief review if the article > did not have any misleading information / hallucinations / bad advice for > the users. Those are submitted by authors who we accepted as writers to the > publications. > > But IMHO accepting such AI-generated content that increases the entropy Is > bad. > > But I think the right approach for anyone who wants to submit an article > that while it's good to use AI for some part of the content and to help to > generate such articles, the end results should be somewhat insightful > and should "decrease the entropy" of Ariflow knowledge rather than > "increase the entropy". > > While this is difficult to judge, and it's more of an arbitrary decision, > maybe we should agree that it is the right thing to do. I am not sure if we > want to have some body or a group of people to decide whether the article > is good to publish - I feel somewhat uncomfortable - even with Briana > together - to make some arbitrary decisions there. > > Would love to hear what you think and how we could make it more of a > community decision. > > J. >
