"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <[email protected]> writes:
> Hello all. In the context of Guix’ proposed pledge against generative AI: > https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/pulls/13/files > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2026-06/msg00075.html > > Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes: > >> Hello! >> >> "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <[email protected]> skribis: >> >>> To me, there’s only one realistic way not to make a false promise with >>> this pledge: Stick with taking translations from the Codeberg Weblate, >>> but don’t mention translations nor Weblate in the pledge. Generative >>> LLM AI are not really the problem in translations, though we can >>> discourage its use in a possibly ignored Weblate message. >> >> OK, we can do that. > > Thanks; yes we should if we stay on Codeberg Weblate. > > >>> Or less realism: Set up our own Weblate for Guix, with few translators >>> who maybe better know Guix (which I will not set up; this likely is not >>> a real option in the near future). >> >> From your comments, I feel like leaving the Translation Project was >> perhaps not such a good idea? In the end, the TP is structured around >> language team; it is “small and slow”, but probably higher-quality? >> >> Thanks, >> Ludo’. > > Hmm the Translation Project. https://translationproject.org/ > > Certainly it is a better choice than hosting our own Weblate. If we do > want to be strict about LLM translations, I strongly believe TP is the > best choice. As Ludo writes, TP in my opinion indeed is “small and > slow, but probably higher-quality”. > > If we are *not* strict, TP is a mixed blessing. I believe TP gives a > high quality but low quantity of translations, meaning it is good for > guix core and manual, bad (?) for packages. The website is basically > done anyway currently; Weblate had been good for its simple topics. > > Yes, I would favor leaving Weblate instances and going back to the TP, > though it makes it harder to compare translations among languages. But > TP has copyright headers. No screenshots though and no automation for > French interpunctuation. I am personally very fond of the way Weblate allows easy comparison of strings between different languages. It has made working on the Romanian translations a lot easier, as it is often beneficial to try to align with the other Romance-language translations in terms of vocabulary. > Do we all agree we want to move? > > Cc other frequent Weblate translators Andrei Șova, F. Serrador, N4ta if > they want to give input. And most importantly Julien Lepiller who > proposed Weblate; it was right at that time. > > I cannot contact Codeberg translator Umeaman, kostic, gallegonovato by > mail. > > Regards, > Florian I would agree to any pledge or commitment that restricts the use of machine-generated translations. I also would support less, but higher quality translations that are deeply thought-out by people familiar with Guix. Romanian is a mid-sized language by all accounts, but I still often come across translations that make absolutely no sense at all, caused by machine translation or by translators that are completely unfamiliar with the software they are localizing. I would like the Guix translations to be different in this regard, which has so far also been possible on Codeberg Weblate for Romanian (unsure if others have been having issues with high-volume LLM spam). However, if a higher barrier of entry is the price to pay for having higher-quality translations then is in my opinion an acceptable trade-off. What I am slightly concerned about are future translations for new languages, which might suffer from increased friction. -- - sova
