Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Florian, > > "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <[email protected]> skribis: > >> My impression is that all GCD 008 versions are quite strict on the use >> of all generative AI, despite some exceptions in the latest proposed >> policy versions that Maxim criticized. I seek ambiguity in legal >> significance more than there really is in the policy. >> >> Ambiguity stems from the difference of commitments and of policy to what >> has been accepted by me and Julien Lepiller for translations so far. > > [...] > >> A strict policy looks nice if we don’t want this meandering quality, but >> then Weblate is not sustainable without gating access. > > OK, thanks for explaining. > > Since translation is quite special (in that people submit individual > strings rather than big chunks),
Yes, there is no legal concern. > since the flood gates were already > opened from what you describe, and since we don’t want to make > commitments that we wouldn’t be able to hold, at least in the immediate > future, I’m open to removing the word “translations” from the first > commitment. > > I find it sad, but I understand what you describe. Removing the word “Weblate” and the word “translations” is one outcome that I can support. But my guess is, some slop contributors ignore any policy banner just like they ignore the previous translation when they replace it by something worse or non-compiling code. Quality will go down more than up. I can no longer keep up with reviewing. We should shut down the GNU Guix at Codeberg Weblate in favor of accepting PRs. Julien, WDYT? (Previous era’s Fedora Weblate had both human slop and AI, but with less quantity of good & bad.) The friction that is written about in https://blog.stdlib.io/ai-and-the-invisible-newcomer-in-open-source/ that Ludo cited in the Motivation section, this friction is much needed but missing. Regards, Florian
