Re: GR: Ban LLM contributions from Debian

Hi,

On 7/25/26 15:47, Matthias Urlichs wrote:

>> I want to add, though, that I'm not sure how I feel about preventing 
>> LLM usage for translation.

> Seconded. This puts the onus of translating the content on the receiver, 
> which (a) will result in far more LLM use (and thus waste of energy and 
> all that) than if the sender did it, (b) marginalize the sender: not 
> every intended recipient will bother.

The problem with doing an LLM translation on the sender side is that if 
there is information loss, it happens on the sender side, and cannot be 
reversed by the recipient.

Because of the way LLM based translation works, such information loss 
will most likely take the form of "all the words you would expect are 
there, but the meaning is different", which is difficult for a 
non-native speaker to notice, so they would be sending a message with a 
different meaning than they intended.

I work in a bilingual company, and we have moved away from 
sender-provided translations specifically for that reason -- if I do not 
understand a sentence, I will usually try translation software first, 
but verify the grammar against the original to find out if the 
translation is correct, or the opposite of what was meant.

The latter happens about twice a week, and while it is 面倒くさい to do all 
of this translation work, it saves a lot of time compared to working on 
incorrect specifications.

    Simon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEtjuqOJSXmNjSiX3Tfr04e7CZCBEFAmplIRIACgkQfr04e7CZ
CBGX4Af/QmMIABHG7MhvtVN+Wd3B+kpSbBybrdIwaQ3bjg5lgzAZV4+eIRVDUHmC
AnpbHaVNwJFOrvTPzr2nAK0l3a8kb735QdxImIWNhMc4yM7cLdSXd7oU5BM8buHw
DfzAUTNMbUf+PgHSynmazZulyTXpluDWvjMl4oXlbSyWtC9Rsr7GPNhJT93VpKaB
p1139N7Mv7zPykkv1/5FCMAufsvW1bDMLLR8zZn2HecFE+RyQ0HqfnByniSHp/y/
/LBX8EtVJtZzySKsfbm79u5xOUgvs0wmzdHsVgLqIzAMZ0R3IW+coEIgsvn+V9iQ
15/UVpk5FXWDAj98SLMaCHU6wXiv2g==
=U3RO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----