Hi Osama, On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 1:48 AM Osama Aldemeery <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. I would be interested to know how to differentiate this. It will aslo pop ups quickly during discussions. Watermark maybe? ;-) > 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. Please no more policies. It is already too much and one needs a Sr VP of compliance to parse some of the existing one to make sense of them. > 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. If we start to add even more barriers, we are not welcoming, we are guarding railing contributions on subjective interpretation of what one wrote, or how. Best, -- Pierre @pierrejoye
