silverpill@silverpill@socialhub.activitypub.rocks: Should machine-generated proposals be accepted?<br><br>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.<br><br><a class="link-in-note" href="https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/issues/800" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/issues/800</a>

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

Note Detail

silverpill@silverpill@socialhub.activitypub.rocks (2026-03-23 18:36:06)
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.

https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/issues/800


---Replies---

dima skavish@skavish@socialhub.activitypub.rocks (2026-03-27 02:46:40)
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.