On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 7:30 PM Pierre Joye <[email protected]> wrote: > > hello, > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2026, 10:36 PM Larry Garfield <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> I agree with Derick. Using a translator to assist with a language barrier >> is reasonable, and these days they've all been replaced with LLMs (justified >> or not). But I would still prefer to have that explicitly stated, so we >> know what we're dealing with. (And can use simpler English in replies, >> potentially, to aid with understanding.) >> >> Beyond that, I want to talk to humans, not slop machines. If someone's >> diplomatic skills are not up to the task of discussing on the list without >> filtering through a chatbot, then they need to work on their diplomatic >> skills before subjecting us to slop. > > > I have to interfere here again. > > I explained a perfectly valid case where llm are used, and they are many > orders of magnitude better than translators, even based on llm. > > I experience that daily. And the primary reason the personsI work with do it > is, guess it, to respect me or others. > > To say here, given someone has been directly pointed to via his post, would > be extremely bad taken in many cultures (read: insulting, losing face, and > they will move away). > > As the "official" language is English here and most oss project, I cannot let > that go unnoticed. > > We must be welcoming for non natice speakers. And for one, I welcome them. > And if the price is to have a slightly longer mail at time, so be it. > respect and welcoming must prevail. > > -- > Pierre > > @pierrejoye
Hi, Not trying to speak for anyone here, but it seems like the concern about AI use on the list isn't really about helping with translation or other genuine values of AI. That has been said explicitly more than once, and I don't think anyone has actually argued against it. What has been objected to, though, is a tool authoring the argument itself, with a person just forwarding it as their own. Which sounds more like an authorship question rather than an AI one? If that is roughly right, then I think the problem isn't really about using AI per se, it's probably more about engagement/authenticity/authorship. Which is something a policy could probably be written around. Additionally, a written policy would make it easier for those who rely on AI to blend in by drawing the guardrails and explicitly stating what is and isn't acceptable. Something that would keep the list as welcoming as it has always been without draining people's energy. Those were just my two cents... Regards, Osama
