Yeah, you're probably right - so I'm ok with it that way :)
On Sat, Nov 30, 2024, 22:38 Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > 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. > >> > > >> > > >
