در تاریخ سهشنبه ۲۵ اوت ۲۰۲۶، ۲۲:۲۰ Osama Aldemeery <[email protected]> نوشت:
> 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 > ---------- Hi everyone, I want to thank Osama and Pierre for their well-articulated points. I completely agree with the distinction made here: there is a fundamental difference between using AI as a translation/grammar tool and using it to generate arguments or act as the author. As a non-native English speaker, my goal in using translation tools has always been to ensure my technical points are clear and to communicate respectfully with the community, never to replace my own thoughts or technical arguments. I fully support Osama's suggestion of creating a written policy or guardrails. Having clear guidelines will help everyone, especially non-native speakers, know the boundaries while keeping the community welcoming. Thank you all for the constructive discussion. I look forward to focusing our energy back on improving PHP! Best regards, Sepehr
