[tldoc] TeXLive plans in writing the documentation: will be human or chatgpt generated text?

[Carlos]

On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 03:01:26PM -0600, Karl Berry wrote:
> Carlos - TUG as an organization has no opinion pro or con for chatgpt,
> or llm in general. The board has never discussed it; as far as I can
> see, there's nothing to discuss. In his newsletter, Boris was simply
> making an observation. Boris is on this list and can confirm if it would
> ease your mind.
> 
> I can tell you that none of the projects I am involved, including the
> various manuals, are currently using or plan to use chatgpt or any other
> llm.  I mean, if a translator wishes to use chatgpt to help, that's
> fine, but it's up to them. I neither object nor suggest. Nor do I have
> any way of knowing if someone does.

Machine translation. Another topic.  Nothing new, and I'm 100 porciento
confident that you're fully aware of.

> I personally have never used, or plan to use in the foreseeable future,
> chatgpt or any other llm.  Not so much out of philosophical considerations
> as because I'd rather spend my time doing other things. --best, karl.
> 

Thank you for reading my thoughts Karl and breaking down without the need
of quoting individually (by sentences, by paragrphs, or linebreaks), my original message. 

Your last paragraph summarizes it even better. And it's good to
know what you think, or better yet, at the very least to get a vague
idea of how you think about it (whether with/without philosophical
considerations). As you can probably summon by now: I'm just
disappointed (and not necessarily with what TUG does/does not do
about it). It goes well beyond that. 


-- 
In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way.
		-- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982