4 ms·
This seems fair, tbh. And I fully agree on the policy for issues/discussions/PRs. I know there will probably be a whole host of people from non-English-speakin
by ChristianJacobs 8mo ago
This seems fair, tbh. And I fully agree on the policy for issues/discussions/PRs.
I know there will probably be a whole host of people from non-English-speaking countries who will complain that they are only using AI to translate because English is not their first (or maybe even second) language. To those I will just say: I would much rather read your non-native English, knowing you put thought and care into what you wrote, rather than reading an AIs (poor) interpretation of what you hoped to convey.
- nabbed 8mo agoAlthough: "An exception will be made for LLM-assisted translations if you are having trouble accurately conveying your intent in English."
- ChristianJacobs 8mo agoI am quite obviously blind, but I still stand by my sentiment. I would rather have a "bad" but honest PR body than a machine translated one where the author isn't sure about what it says. How will you know if what it says is what you meant?
- fragmede 8mo ago突然出現一大段外文文字會讓很多人感到反感。即使不能百分之百確定翻譯準確，大多數使用者仍然更傾向於將其翻譯成英語。
- samtheDamned 8mo agoAs a native english speaker I don't run into this problem, but in the context of a PR do you think having the original native PR documentation alongside the machine translated documentation would have a similar problem?
- adastra22 8mo agoThere is a carve out exception for this in the doc.
- bjackman 8mo agoI think the spirit of the policy also allows you to write your own words in your own language and have an AI translate it. (But also, for a majority of people old fashioned Google Translate works great). (Edit: it's actually a explicit carveout)