Thread

1. Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

   Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com> — 2024-07-17T17:21:44Z

   I've been noticing a growing trend of blog posts written mostly, if not
   entirely, with AI (aka LLMs, ChatGPT, etc.). I'm not sure where to raise
   this issue. I considered a blog post, but this mailing list seemed a better
   forum to generate a discussion.
   
   The problem is two-fold as I see it.
   
   First, there is the issue of people trying to game the system by churning
   out content that is not theirs, but was written by a LLM. I'm not going to
   name specific posts, but after a while it gets easy to recognize things
   that are written mostly by AI.
   
   These blog posts are usually generic, describing some part of Postgres
   in an impersonal, mid-level way. Most of the time the facts are not
   wrong, per se, but they lack nuances that a real DBA would bring to the
   discussion, and often leave important things out. Code examples are often
   wrong in subtle ways. Places where you might expect a deeper discussion are
   glossed over.
   
   So this first problem is that it is polluting the Postgres blogs with
   overly bland, moderately helpful posts that are not written by a human, and
   do not really bring anything interesting to the table. There is a place for
   posts that describe basic Postgres features, but the ones written by humans
   are much better. (yeah, yeah, "for now" and all hail our AI overlords in
   the future).
   
   The second problem is worse, in that LLMs are not merely gathering
   information, but have the ability to synthesize new conclusions and facts.
   In short, they can lie. Or hallucinate. However you want to call it, it's a
   side effect of the way LLMs work. In a technical field like Postgres, this
   can be a very bad thing. I don't know how widespread this is, but I was
   tipped off about this over a year ago when I came across a blog suggesting
   using the "max_toast_size configuration parameter". For those not
   familiar, I can assure you that Postgres does not have, nor will likely
   ever have, a GUC with that name.
   
   As anyone who has spoken with ChatGPT knows, getting small important
   details correct is not its forte. I love ChatGPT and actually use it daily.
   It is amazing at doing certain tasks. But writing blog posts should not be
   one of them.
   
   Do we need a policy or a guideline for Planet Postgres? I don't know. It
   can be a gray line. Obviously spelling and grammar checking is quite
   okay, and making up random GUCs is not, but the middle bit is very hazy.
   (Human) thoughts welcome.
   
   Cheers,
   Greg
   

2. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

   Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> — 2024-07-17T17:41:17Z

   st 17. 7. 2024 v 19:22 odesílatel Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>
   napsal:
   
   > I've been noticing a growing trend of blog posts written mostly, if not
   > entirely, with AI (aka LLMs, ChatGPT, etc.). I'm not sure where to raise
   > this issue. I considered a blog post, but this mailing list seemed a better
   > forum to generate a discussion.
   >
   > The problem is two-fold as I see it.
   >
   > First, there is the issue of people trying to game the system by churning
   > out content that is not theirs, but was written by a LLM. I'm not going to
   > name specific posts, but after a while it gets easy to recognize things
   > that are written mostly by AI.
   >
   > These blog posts are usually generic, describing some part of Postgres
   > in an impersonal, mid-level way. Most of the time the facts are not
   > wrong, per se, but they lack nuances that a real DBA would bring to the
   > discussion, and often leave important things out. Code examples are often
   > wrong in subtle ways. Places where you might expect a deeper discussion are
   > glossed over.
   >
   > So this first problem is that it is polluting the Postgres blogs with
   > overly bland, moderately helpful posts that are not written by a human, and
   > do not really bring anything interesting to the table. There is a place for
   > posts that describe basic Postgres features, but the ones written by humans
   > are much better. (yeah, yeah, "for now" and all hail our AI overlords in
   > the future).
   >
   > The second problem is worse, in that LLMs are not merely gathering
   > information, but have the ability to synthesize new conclusions and facts.
   > In short, they can lie. Or hallucinate. However you want to call it, it's a
   > side effect of the way LLMs work. In a technical field like Postgres, this
   > can be a very bad thing. I don't know how widespread this is, but I was
   > tipped off about this over a year ago when I came across a blog suggesting
   > using the "max_toast_size configuration parameter". For those not
   > familiar, I can assure you that Postgres does not have, nor will likely
   > ever have, a GUC with that name.
   >
   > As anyone who has spoken with ChatGPT knows, getting small important
   > details correct is not its forte. I love ChatGPT and actually use it daily.
   > It is amazing at doing certain tasks. But writing blog posts should not be
   > one of them.
   >
   > Do we need a policy or a guideline for Planet Postgres? I don't know. It
   > can be a gray line. Obviously spelling and grammar checking is quite
   > okay, and making up random GUCs is not, but the middle bit is very hazy.
   > (Human) thoughts welcome.
   >
   
   It is very unpleasant to read a long article, and at the end to understand
   so there is zero valuable information. Terrible situation was on planet
   mariadb https://mariadb.org/planet/, but now it was cleaned. I am for some
   form of moderating - and gently touching an author that writes articles
   without extra value against documentation.
   
   Regards
   
   Pavel
   
   
   
   >
   > Cheers,
   > Greg
   >
   >
   

3. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

   Kashif Zeeshan <kashi.zeeshan@gmail.com> — 2024-07-17T17:43:33Z

   Hi Greg
   
   I agree with you on the misuse of AI based tools, as per my experience with
   Postgres the solutions suggested wont work at times.
   Its not bad to get help from these tools but put all the solutions from
   there is counter productive.
   I think People should take care while using these tools while suggesting
   solutions for real world problems.
   
   Regards
   Kashif Zeeshan
   
   On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 10:22 PM Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>
   wrote:
   
   > I've been noticing a growing trend of blog posts written mostly, if not
   > entirely, with AI (aka LLMs, ChatGPT, etc.). I'm not sure where to raise
   > this issue. I considered a blog post, but this mailing list seemed a better
   > forum to generate a discussion.
   >
   > The problem is two-fold as I see it.
   >
   > First, there is the issue of people trying to game the system by churning
   > out content that is not theirs, but was written by a LLM. I'm not going to
   > name specific posts, but after a while it gets easy to recognize things
   > that are written mostly by AI.
   >
   > These blog posts are usually generic, describing some part of Postgres
   > in an impersonal, mid-level way. Most of the time the facts are not
   > wrong, per se, but they lack nuances that a real DBA would bring to the
   > discussion, and often leave important things out. Code examples are often
   > wrong in subtle ways. Places where you might expect a deeper discussion are
   > glossed over.
   >
   > So this first problem is that it is polluting the Postgres blogs with
   > overly bland, moderately helpful posts that are not written by a human, and
   > do not really bring anything interesting to the table. There is a place for
   > posts that describe basic Postgres features, but the ones written by humans
   > are much better. (yeah, yeah, "for now" and all hail our AI overlords in
   > the future).
   >
   > The second problem is worse, in that LLMs are not merely gathering
   > information, but have the ability to synthesize new conclusions and facts.
   > In short, they can lie. Or hallucinate. However you want to call it, it's a
   > side effect of the way LLMs work. In a technical field like Postgres, this
   > can be a very bad thing. I don't know how widespread this is, but I was
   > tipped off about this over a year ago when I came across a blog suggesting
   > using the "max_toast_size configuration parameter". For those not
   > familiar, I can assure you that Postgres does not have, nor will likely
   > ever have, a GUC with that name.
   >
   > As anyone who has spoken with ChatGPT knows, getting small important
   > details correct is not its forte. I love ChatGPT and actually use it daily.
   > It is amazing at doing certain tasks. But writing blog posts should not be
   > one of them.
   >
   > Do we need a policy or a guideline for Planet Postgres? I don't know. It
   > can be a gray line. Obviously spelling and grammar checking is quite
   > okay, and making up random GUCs is not, but the middle bit is very hazy.
   > (Human) thoughts welcome.
   >
   > Cheers,
   > Greg
   >
   >
   

4. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

   Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> — 2024-07-17T20:48:14Z

   On 7/17/24 10:21, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
   > I've been noticing a growing trend of blog posts written mostly, if not 
   > entirely, with AI (aka LLMs, ChatGPT, etc.). I'm not sure where to raise 
   > this issue. I considered a blog post, but this mailing list seemed a 
   > better forum to generate a discussion.
   > 
   
   > 
   > Do we need a policy or a guideline for Planet Postgres? I don't know. It 
   > can be a gray line. Obviously spelling and grammar checking is quite 
   > okay, and making up random GUCs is not, but the middle bit is very hazy. 
   > (Human) thoughts welcome.
   
   A policy would be nice, just not sure how enforceable it would be. How 
   do you differentiate between the parrot that is AI and one that is 
   human? I run across all manner of blog posts where folks have lifted 
   content from the documentation or other sources without attribution, 
   which is basically what AI generated content is. AI does like to 
   embellish and make things up(ask the NYC lawyer suing the airlines about 
   that), though that is a human trait as well.
   
   > 
   > Cheers,
   > Greg
   > 
   
   -- 
   Adrian Klaver
   adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
   
   
   
   
   

5. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

   Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> — 2024-07-18T07:00:50Z

   On Wed, 2024-07-17 at 13:21 -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
   > I've been noticing a growing trend of blog posts written mostly, if not entirely, with AI
   > (aka LLMs, ChatGPT, etc.). I'm not sure where to raise this issue. I considered a blog post,
   > but this mailing list seemed a better forum to generate a discussion.
   > 
   > The problem is two-fold as I see it.
   > 
   > First, there is the issue of people trying to game the system by churning out content that is not theirs [...]
   > 
   > So this first problem is that it is polluting the Postgres blogs [...]
   > 
   > The second problem is worse, in that LLMs are not merely gathering information, but have
   > the ability to synthesize new conclusions and facts. In short, they can lie.
   > 
   > Do we need a policy or a guideline for Planet Postgres? I don't know. It can be a gray line.
   > Obviously spelling and grammar checking is quite okay, and making up random GUCs is not,
   > but the middle bit is very hazy. (Human) thoughts welcome.
   
   As someone who writes blogs and occasionally browses Planet Postgres, this has not
   struck me as a major problem.  I just scrolled through it and nothing stood out to
   me - perhaps I am too naïve.
   
   There certainly are people who publish random short utterances, perhaps with the
   intention to hit the "top posters" list, but I don't think we need strong measures.
   
   If anything, I am most annoyed by articles that are just thinly veiled advertising,
   but there is already a policy controlling that.
   
   As long as there is not a flood of AI generated babble (and I cannot see one), I'd
   say that this will regulate itself: spewing empty content and lies is not going to
   reflect well on the author and his/her organization.
   
   PostgreSQL has excellent documentation.  Anybody who blindly follows advice from a
   blog without checking with the documentation only has himself/herself to blame.
   
   Yours,
   Laurenz Albe
   
   
   
   

6. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

   Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> — 2024-07-18T12:31:23Z

   I wrote:
   > On Wed, 2024-07-17 at 13:21 -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
   > > I've been noticing a growing trend of blog posts written mostly, if not entirely, with AI
   > > (aka LLMs, ChatGPT, etc.). I'm not sure where to raise this issue. I considered a blog post,
   > > but this mailing list seemed a better forum to generate a discussion.
   > >
   > > [...]
   > > 
   > > Do we need a policy or a guideline for Planet Postgres? I don't know. It can be a gray line.
   > > Obviously spelling and grammar checking is quite okay, and making up random GUCs is not,
   > > but the middle bit is very hazy. (Human) thoughts welcome.
   > 
   > As someone who writes blogs and occasionally browses Planet Postgres, this has not
   > struck me as a major problem.  I just scrolled through it and nothing stood out to
   > me - perhaps I am too naïve.
   
   Seems like I *was* naïve - Álvaro has pointed me to a juicy example off-list.
   
   Still, I wouldn't make a policy specifically against AI generated content.  That is
   hard to prove, and it misses the core of the problem.  The real problem is low-level,
   counterfactual content, be it generated by an AI or not.
   
   Perhaps there could be a way to report misleading, bad content and a policy that says
   that you can be banned if you repeatedly write grossly misleading and counterfactual
   content.  Stuff like "to improve performance, set fast_mode = on and restart the database".
   
   Yours,
   Laurenz Albe
   
   
   
   

7. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

   David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> — 2024-07-18T13:33:42Z

   On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 at 00:31, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:
   > Perhaps there could be a way to report misleading, bad content and a policy that says
   > that you can be banned if you repeatedly write grossly misleading and counterfactual
   > content.  Stuff like "to improve performance, set fast_mode = on and restart the database".
   
   As a first step, maybe it's worth just privately writing to the
   offenders telling them what's been seen, giving them a chance to
   improve and letting them know what they're doing isn't going
   unnoticed.  If I was doing this and someone pointed out lots of silly
   mistakes with something I'd published, I'd be very embarrassed and I'd
   reconsider my blog writing approach.
   
   It might also be worth considering if we want to have a policy on LLM
   usage in https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/planet-postgresql/
   .  If we want to disallow blogs written by LLMs then we'd need to be
   careful about how we define that as doing something like using an
   LLM-based spell checker does not seem like it should be disallowed.
   But to what degree exactly should that be allowed?
   
   David
   
   
   
   

8. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

   Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com> — 2024-07-18T14:25:27Z

   > But to what degree exactly should that be allowed?
   
   Somewhat ironically, here's a distinction chatgpt and I came up with:
   
   LLM-generated content: Content where the substantial part of the text is
   directly created by LLMs without significant human alteration or editing.
   
   Human-edited or reviewed content: Content that has been substantially
   revised, corrected, or enhanced by a human after initial generation by
   LLMs. This includes using spell and grammar checking, manual edits for
   clarity or style, and content that reflects significant human input beyond
   the original LLM output.
   

9. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

   Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> — 2024-07-19T07:22:10Z

   On Thu, 2024-07-18 at 10:25 -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
   > > But to what degree exactly should that be allowed?
   > 
   > Somewhat ironically, here's a distinction chatgpt and I came up with:
   > 
   > LLM-generated content: Content where the substantial part of the text is directly
   > created by LLMs without significant human alteration or editing.
   
   I have no problem with that definition, but it is useless as a policy:
   Even in a blog with glaring AI nonsense in it, how can you prove that the
   author did not actually edit and improve other significant parts of the text?
   
   Why not say that authors who repeatedly post grossly counterfactual or
   misleading content can be banned?
   
   Yours,
   Laurenz Albe
   
   
   
   

10. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

    Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com> — 2024-07-23T14:38:54Z

    On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 3:22 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
    wrote:
    
    > I have no problem with that definition, but it is useless as a policy:
    > Even in a blog with glaring AI nonsense in it, how can you prove that the
    > author did not actually edit and improve other significant parts of the
    > text?
    >
    
    Well, we can't 100% prove it, but we can have ethical guidelines. We
    already have other guidelines that are open to interpretation (and plenty
    of planet posts bend the rules quite often, IMO, but that's another post).
    
    
    > Why not say that authors who repeatedly post grossly counterfactual or
    > misleading content can be banned?
    >
    
    Banned is a strong word, but certainly they can have the posts removed, and
    receive warnings from the planet admins. If the admins can point to a
    policy, that helps. Perhaps as you hint at, we need a policy to not just
    discourage AI-generated things, but also wrong/misleading things in general
    (which was not much of a problem before LLMs arrived, to be honest).
    
    Cheers,
    Greg
    

11. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

    Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> — 2024-07-23T15:50:59Z

    On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 10:38 -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
    > > Why not say that authors who repeatedly post grossly counterfactual or
    > > misleading content can be banned?
    > 
    > Perhaps as you hint at, we need a policy to not just discourage AI-generated
    > things, but also wrong/misleading things in general
    
    I have been known to make mistakes in my blogs...
    We shouldn't discourage people who happen to blog something wrong.
    That's why I used strong verbiage like "grossly counterfactual".
    
    Yours,
    Laurenz Albe
    
    
    
    

12. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

    Avinash Vallarapu <avinash.vallarapu@gmail.com> — 2024-07-23T16:45:47Z

    Hi,
    
    As someone who has taken days to publish each blog upon so many reviews,
    corrections and edits while
    attempting to make it as best/informative and as perfect as possible, it
    might seem slightly frustrating when
    we see some AI generated content, especially when it is misleading readers.
    
    However, I do agree with Lawrence that it is impossible to prove whether it
    is written by AI or a human.
    AI can make mistakes and it might mistakenly point out that a blog is
    written by AI (which I know is difficult to implement).
    
    I see Moderators spending some time reviewing content and accepting or
    warning if it is not related to Postgres.
    AI may be adopted to help us score whether an article is related to
    Postgres and decline the submission/blog feed.
    But, it is very impossible to use AI or some strategy to identify whether
    it is written by AI or human.
    
    People may also use AI generated Images in their blogs, and they may be
    meaningful for their article.
    Is it only the content or also the images ?  It might get too complicated
    while implementing some rules.
    
    Ultimately, Humans do make mistakes and we shouldn't discourage people
    assuming it is AI that made that mistake.
    
    
    
    On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 11:51 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
    wrote:
    
    > On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 10:38 -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
    > > > Why not say that authors who repeatedly post grossly counterfactual or
    > > > misleading content can be banned?
    > >
    > > Perhaps as you hint at, we need a policy to not just discourage
    > AI-generated
    > > things, but also wrong/misleading things in general
    >
    > I have been known to make mistakes in my blogs...
    > We shouldn't discourage people who happen to blog something wrong.
    > That's why I used strong verbiage like "grossly counterfactual".
    >
    > Yours,
    > Laurenz Albe
    >
    >
    >
    
    -- 
    Regards,
    Avinash Vallarapu
    

13. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

    Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com> — 2024-08-20T12:32:26Z

    On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 12:45 PM Avinash Vallarapu <
    avinash.vallarapu@gmail.com> wrote:
    
    > However, I do agree with Lawrence that it is impossible to prove whether
    > it is written by AI or a human.
    > AI can make mistakes and it might mistakenly point out that a blog is
    > written by AI (which I know is difficult to implement).
    >
    
    Right - I am not interested in "proving" things, but I think a policy to
    discourage overuse of AI is warranted.
    
    People may also use AI generated Images in their blogs, and they may be
    > meaningful for their article.
    > Is it only the content or also the images ?  It might get too complicated
    > while implementing some rules.
    >
    
    Only the content, the images are perfectly fine. Even expected, these days.
    
    
    > Ultimately, Humans do make mistakes and we shouldn't discourage people
    > assuming it is AI that made that mistake.
    >
    
    Humans make mistakes. AI confidently hallucinates.
    

14. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

    Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com> — 2024-08-20T12:44:04Z

    On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 3:22 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
    wrote:
    
    > Why not say that authors who repeatedly post grossly counterfactual or
    > misleading content can be banned?
    >
    
    I like this, and feel we are getting closer. How about:
    
    "Posts should be technically and factually correct. Use of AI should be
    used for minor editing, not primary generation"
    
    (wordsmithing needed)
    
    Cheers,
    Greg
    

15. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

    Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2024-08-20T16:19:22Z

    On 2024-08-20 22:44, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
    > On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 3:22 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
    > wrote:
    > 
    >> Why not say that authors who repeatedly post grossly counterfactual or
    >> misleading content can be banned?
    > 
    > I like this, and feel we are getting closer. How about:
    > 
    > "Posts should be technically and factually correct. Use of AI should be
    > used for minor editing, not primary generation"
    
    Sounds pretty sensible. :)
    
    + Justin
    
    
    
    

16. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

    Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2024-08-20T16:58:38Z

    On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 02:19:22AM +1000, Justin Clift wrote:
    > On 2024-08-20 22:44, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
    > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 3:22 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
    > > wrote:
    > > 
    > > > Why not say that authors who repeatedly post grossly counterfactual or
    > > > misleading content can be banned?
    > > 
    > > I like this, and feel we are getting closer. How about:
    > > 
    > > "Posts should be technically and factually correct. Use of AI should be
    > > used for minor editing, not primary generation"
    > 
    > Sounds pretty sensible. :)
    
    Agreed.  Honestly, some of the AI is so bad that if you see something you
    suspect is AI generated, you can just ask the author what they meant by
    that paragraph, and they will not be able to answer.
    
    -- 
      Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
      EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com
    
      Only you can decide what is important to you.
    
    
    
    

17. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

    Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net> — 2024-08-22T21:13:17Z

    On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 8:33 AM Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 12:45 PM Avinash Vallarapu <avinash.vallarapu@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> However, I do agree with Lawrence that it is impossible to prove whether it is written by AI or a human.
    >> AI can make mistakes and it might mistakenly point out that a blog is written by AI (which I know is difficult to implement).
    >
    >
    > Right - I am not interested in "proving" things, but I think a policy to discourage overuse of AI is warranted.
    >
    >> People may also use AI generated Images in their blogs, and they may be meaningful for their article.
    >> Is it only the content or also the images ?  It might get too complicated while implementing some rules.
    >
    >
    > Only the content, the images are perfectly fine. Even expected, these days.
    >
    >>
    >> Ultimately, Humans do make mistakes and we shouldn't discourage people assuming it is AI that made that mistake.
    >
    >
    > Humans make mistakes. AI confidently hallucinates.
    >
    
    I think this is a key point, and one that we could focus on for
    purposes of discouragement. Ie.  "Blogs that are found to repeatedly
    post incorrect information and/or AI style hallucinations may be
    restricted from contributing to the planet postgres feed. This will be
    determined on a case by case basis."  While it is likely impossible to
    come up with a set of rules that will satisfy some of the more
    legalistic folks among us, this would be a simple warning that would
    at least encourage folks to make sure they aren't posting bad
    information and leave a door open for enforcement if needed. And yes,
    this assumes that the folks running planet will enforce if needed,
    though I don't think it requires heavy policing at this point.
    
    Robert Treat
    https://xzilla.net
    
    
    
    

18. Re: Planet Postgres and the curse of AI

    jmscott@setspace.com — 2024-08-22T22:02:32Z

    > Posts should be technically and factually correct
    
    agreed and period.  no need qualify how the nonsense was created.
    
    -john
    
    On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 4:13 PM Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net> wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 8:33 AM Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 12:45 PM Avinash Vallarapu <avinash.vallarapu@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> However, I do agree with Lawrence that it is impossible to prove whether it is written by AI or a human.
    > >> AI can make mistakes and it might mistakenly point out that a blog is written by AI (which I know is difficult to implement).
    > >
    > >
    > > Right - I am not interested in "proving" things, but I think a policy to discourage overuse of AI is warranted.
    > >
    > >> People may also use AI generated Images in their blogs, and they may be meaningful for their article.
    > >> Is it only the content or also the images ?  It might get too complicated while implementing some rules.
    > >
    > >
    > > Only the content, the images are perfectly fine. Even expected, these days.
    > >
    > >>
    > >> Ultimately, Humans do make mistakes and we shouldn't discourage people assuming it is AI that made that mistake.
    > >
    > >
    > > Humans make mistakes. AI confidently hallucinates.
    > >
    >
    > I think this is a key point, and one that we could focus on for
    > purposes of discouragement. Ie.  "Blogs that are found to repeatedly
    > post incorrect information and/or AI style hallucinations may be
    > restricted from contributing to the planet postgres feed. This will be
    > determined on a case by case basis."  While it is likely impossible to
    > come up with a set of rules that will satisfy some of the more
    > legalistic folks among us, this would be a simple warning that would
    > at least encourage folks to make sure they aren't posting bad
    > information and leave a door open for enforcement if needed. And yes,
    > this assumes that the folks running planet will enforce if needed,
    > though I don't think it requires heavy policing at this point.
    >
    > Robert Treat
    > https://xzilla.net
    >
    >
    
    
    -- 
    Fast is fine, But accuracy is final.
    You must learn to be slow in a hurry.
            - Wyatt Earp