| 22:12 | <Michael Ficarra> | can we make it a code of conduct violation to post AI-generated bullshit without properly labelling it as such? |
| 22:19 | <Chris de Almeida> | that's already a CoC violation. context? |
| 22:24 | <Michael Ficarra> | which part? |
| 22:25 | <ljharb> | can you link to the AI-generated bullshit? |
| 22:26 | <Chris de Almeida> | which part? |
| 22:27 | <Chris de Almeida> | "AI-generated bullshit" does not sound respectful, considerate, nor being careful with words |
| 22:27 | <Michael Ficarra> | sorry, AI-generated... meaningless babbling? |
| 22:31 | <Chris de Almeida> | oh |
| 22:31 | <Chris de Almeida> | in that case... |
| 22:31 | <Chris de Almeida> | "AI-generated meaningless babbling" does not sound respectful, considerate, nor being careful with words |
| 22:31 | <bakkot> | the description for https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3287 was very clearly written by chatGPT; plausibly also the text included in the PR itself since it sounds coherent but is meaningless |
| 22:31 | <Chris de Almeida> | MF: apologies for any confusion there -- I am not saying what you said is not respectful |
| 22:43 | <ljharb> | i don't think it's a CoC violation simply to have used an LLM, but it's a dick move, and imo due to copyright uncertainties means we're flatly unable to accept the contribution anyways |
| 22:44 | <ljharb> | perhaps we should update the contribution guidelines to be clear about not using LLMs tho |
| 22:44 | <littledan> | Yes, this is definitely something we should discourage and unceremoniously shut down, I agree. |
| 22:54 | <Michael Ficarra> | to be clear, I don't mind it being used or being quoted in part, but I mind considerably when it is being passed off as a human |
| 22:54 | <Michael Ficarra> | because I have a default level of deference for something someone took the time to write themselves, and it is exhausting to be at that level for something that someone possibly didn't even care enough to review themselves |
| 22:55 | <ljharb> | seems like it's a legit PR that the author only used an LLM for because english isn't their native language |
| 23:00 | <bakkot> | I think we should be explicit that using an LLM for any portion of an issue or PR, including just translation, is disallowed. I would much prefer to get a contribution in a language I don't understand and translate it myself than to get a contribution which an LLM already translated. (Also here they clearly did more than just ask one to translate; chatgpt's translations don't have this distinctive manner of speech) |
| 23:02 | <bakkot> | Well, disallowed if not disclosed, anyway. Don't care nearly as much if disclosed. |
| 23:15 | <Michael Ficarra> | Yeah I just care about disclosure. |
| 23:48 | <ljharb> | that's fair |