silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social: Spelling correction, grammar checking, markdown formatting, FEP template instantiation are all “work done by a machine”@stevebate I think "machine-generated" captures the essence of the problem very well. This means a submitter didn't do the work that is required to gain the deep understanding of a subject, so a meaningful discussion will not be possible.There are some I’ve seen with only a few paragraphs for a complex topic and where the author explicitly refuses to discuss it furtherI am not aware of such cases. In general, even a few paragraphs could be enough, because the discussion that follows is just as important as the text itself. ----- Related: Wikipedia now prohibits generated articles: <a class="link-in-note" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_articles_with_large_language_models" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_articles_with_large_language_models</a>

Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

Reply to @silverpill@mitra.social
Steve Bate@stevebate@socialhub.activitypub.rocks (2026-03-27 14:00:43)
silverpill:@skavish It’s hard to draw a line between machine-generated and machine-assisted.I agree. That’s why I think @skavish ‘s suggestion is more apropos. silverpill:Some open source projects now require contributors to disclose when a part of the work was done by a machine. I am wondering if we could use a similar approach with FEPs.Spelling correction, grammar checking, markdown formatting, FEP template instantiation are all “work done by a machine”. And what’s the granularity of the disclosure (document, paragraph, sentence, phrase, word, general concept)?

I know you probably mean more specifically “work done by, or assisted by, an LLM” but I think this demonstrates the challenges in defining an effective policy. skavish: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.This sounds reasonable to me and I think this could be applied to both human and AI-assisted FEP output. The FEP process currently doesn’t require any minimum quality level for submissions. There are some I’ve seen with only a few paragraphs for a complex topic and where the author explicitly refuses to discuss it further. Those FEPs effectively die. I think the same thing would happen with a low-quality LLM-generated slop FEP that the submitter couldn’t or wouldn’t defend.
---Reply---
silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social (2026-03-31 04:44:55)
Spelling correction, grammar checking, markdown formatting, FEP template instantiation are all “work done by a machine”@stevebate I think "machine-generated" captures the essence of the problem very well. This means a submitter didn't do the work that is required to gain the deep understanding of a subject, so a meaningful discussion will not be possible.There are some I’ve seen with only a few paragraphs for a complex topic and where the author explicitly refuses to discuss it furtherI am not aware of such cases. In general, even a few paragraphs could be enough, because the discussion that follows is just as important as the text itself.

-----

Related: Wikipedia now prohibits generated articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_articles_with_large_language_models