| ▲ | sanxiyn 6 hours ago |
| I don't believe Proposal A forbids this usage. |
|
| ▲ | alightsoul 6 hours ago | parent [-] |
| I would say it leaves communication between individuals in a gray area. And discourages translation work because it has to be done manually. I would say, LLM-translated text on documentation is better than having an LLM translate it again and again on the fly every time someone asks how to do something, because the LLM-translated text can be corrected for everyone to see, whereas conversations with LLMs stay private by default. |
| |
| ▲ | sanxiyn 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | For now, I find the quality of LLM translation highly inadequate, I can do much better, and LLMs agree my translation is much better. So I think "no LLM for official documentation" could be a right call, for now. It should be re-evaluated as LLM translation advances. | | |
| ▲ | alightsoul 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I believe the bigger risk is not low translation quality but choosing instead to use an LLM in a private by default conversation because the LLM rule discourages translation which causes the no information in native language problem which forces the use of LLMs, and thus the LLM output can contain wrong commands which have bricked some computers on reddit |
|
|
