Main reason - it might be a bit intimidating to get your article publicly discussed 'is it ok to publish'.
sob., 30 lis 2024, 21:36 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> napisał: > Not for every vote. > > I wanted to get a generic co sensual on the criteria (which I think we > have) - now we need to figure out if arbitrary decision on that by me and > Briana (and maybe someone else who would like to be part of it). would be > fine :). > > > We've done it so far :). And we can like continue doing so if that's OK. > > J. > > sob., 30 lis 2024, 21:22 użytkownik Shahar Epstein <sha...@apache.org> > napisał: > >> 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. >> > >> >
