So anyway, while I think it is a good idea to keep abreast of all this, it is
not a good idea to design processes based on our guesses about what the legal
treatment of LLM output will be because whatever our guess is, it will be wrong.
What concerns me is the inadvertent creation of a legacy mess from now until
that is resolved. i.e. wishing that we had asked some basic questions early on
to inform later decisions. I can see that this might be considered premature
optimisation.
We can certainly ask, but it's up to the contributor how much to answer.
Honestly, if it turns out that we're publishing big chunks of AI slop
unedited, or so lightly as not to pass the Feist* threshold, unauthorized
translations will be the least of our problems.
R's,
John
* Feist vs Rural Telephone was the phone book case
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
