On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 06:29:38PM +0100, Michal Suchánek wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 12:06:59PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 04:29:52PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > > This document targets all contributors. Contributions can be typo > > > fix, translations, ... and don't have to be technical. Similarly, > > > contributors aren't expected to be technical experts. As a neophyte, > > > "AI" makes sense. "Idempotent code generator" or "LLM" don't :) > > > > I don't think there's any big deal in using AI for typo fixes. > > For how many typos it is still OK, and would not a deterministic > spellchecker be preferred? > > There are some edge cases where using AI is OK, the problem is most of > the time it is not clear it is OK to use. > > Thanks > > Michal
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I am not a lawyer, and I don't speak for Red Hat. My point is however that e.g. even if you are using e.g. a grammar corrector you better make sure that it is not claiming that its output is a derivative work. -- MST
