| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI |
| Date: | 2024-07-19 07:22:10 |
| Message-ID: | 54c731a5825ba6da520ada38597c03605aba6b09.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 2024-07-18 at 10:25 -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > But to what degree exactly should that be allowed?
>
> Somewhat ironically, here's a distinction chatgpt and I came up with:
>
> LLM-generated content: Content where the substantial part of the text is directly
> created by LLMs without significant human alteration or editing.
I have no problem with that definition, but it is useless as a policy:
Even in a blog with glaring AI nonsense in it, how can you prove that the
author did not actually edit and improve other significant parts of the text?
Why not say that authors who repeatedly post grossly counterfactual or
misleading content can be banned?
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Durgamahesh Manne | 2024-07-19 12:48:34 | Fwd: Regarding tables detach concurrently with run_maintenance_proc() |
| Previous Message | azeem subhani | 2024-07-19 05:53:53 | Re: PgbackRest and EDB Query |