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

Steve Bate@stevebate@socialhub.activitypub.rocks

Joined: 2026-03-31 04:47:26
1 notes, 0 following, 0 followers

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.