Machine-generated FEPs
-
Should machine-generated proposals be accepted?
I think we should figure out how to deal with them, because last week I processed 8 new proposals, and some of them had signs of being machine-generated.
-
Should machine-generated proposals be accepted?
I think we should figure out how to deal with them, because last week I processed 8 new proposals, and some of them had signs of being machine-generated.
Good topic. AI is having major impact atm on FOSS project development. Just as a FYI for now I'll drop in the AI Policy that #software:fedify uses: https://github.com/fedify-dev/fedify/blob/6c1f6e6f6410d62cada116fce21b47adb6defe30/AI_POLICY.md
-
Should machine-generated proposals be accepted?
I think we should figure out how to deal with them, because last week I processed 8 new proposals, and some of them had signs of being machine-generated.
I think it would be fair to ask whether a proposal with signs of AI/ML demonstrate that there is an implementation signed on.
We don't have this requirement for human authored FEPs. Perhaps it's a good idea there too.
-
Should machine-generated proposals be accepted?
I think we should figure out how to deal with them, because last week I processed 8 new proposals, and some of them had signs of being machine-generated.
I've seen multiple appeals by developers that FEPs must be related to an implementation. And I understand the reasons too, and they are not invalid either. Yet I don't think it is a good idea for 2 reasons..
It exuberates an "only if you code you count" techbroist vibe that is antithetical to what fediverse stands for. Many people already complain about the tech-heavy culture and the gap that exists between them and the developers, where it is very hard to make their voices heard.
It serves to keep fediverse firmly into app-centric territory, and in a way that increases the risks that fediverse derails over time. Where the app has the highest priority, and 'users' (i.e. people) can appeal for features with individual devs or teams who own said apps, who will then on secundary priority figure out how to pragmatically hammer the feature onto the fedi wire. Interoperability is of tertiary concern. While this may lead to great apps, it not only risks recentralization around app platforms, but does not account for the healthy direction and good social experience of the social network as a whole. The ecosystem languishes while apps thrive.
-
Should machine-generated proposals be accepted?
I think we should figure out how to deal with them, because last week I processed 8 new proposals, and some of them had signs of being machine-generated.
silverpill:Should machine-generated proposals be accepted?
I think we should figure out how to deal with them, because last week I processed 8 new proposals, and some of them had signs of being machine-generated.
There’s a big difference between machine-generated and machine-assisted.
For example, I use LLMs to sanity-check ideas, find gaps, and polish wording, but the actual thinking and context are mine. In that case, calling it “machine-generated” feels wrong.
To me, the line is authorship: if the person understands, owns, and can defend the proposal, it should be fine. If it’s just AI output with little real understanding behind it, that’s where it becomes a problem.
-
silverpill:
Should machine-generated proposals be accepted?
I think we should figure out how to deal with them, because last week I processed 8 new proposals, and some of them had signs of being machine-generated.
There’s a big difference between machine-generated and machine-assisted.
For example, I use LLMs to sanity-check ideas, find gaps, and polish wording, but the actual thinking and context are mine. In that case, calling it “machine-generated” feels wrong.
To me, the line is authorship: if the person understands, owns, and can defend the proposal, it should be fine. If it’s just AI output with little real understanding behind it, that’s where it becomes a problem.
How would we go about challenging those proposals?
Arnold: there are certainly many with ideas and the will to produce FEPs. I don't wish to disincentivize or restrict that work, but merely state that I feel standards work without implementation (or even intent to implement) is work produced in a vacuum.
Ciao! Sembra che tu sia interessato a questa conversazione, ma non hai ancora un account.
Stanco di dover scorrere gli stessi post a ogni visita? Quando registri un account, tornerai sempre esattamente dove eri rimasto e potrai scegliere di essere avvisato delle nuove risposte (tramite email o notifica push). Potrai anche salvare segnalibri e votare i post per mostrare il tuo apprezzamento agli altri membri della comunità.
Con il tuo contributo, questo post potrebbe essere ancora migliore 💗
Registrati Accedi