Seems ironic that a blog post describing GHC's AI policy, from a contributor to GHC, which expresses agreement with GHC's AI policy, itself directly violates GHC's AI policy (points P1 and P4)!
I don't understand how this violates point 1, and I assume by violating point 4 you mean this essay is LLM assisted but the unnamed authors (Serokell PR?) don't disclose that. I'm not as certain that this post is AI written - it might just be "written by PR committee voice".
I admit I don't have ground truth here, but the whole thing reads to me as very clearly AI generated. For what it's worth, Pangram agrees. In my view, this style of blog post does not "prioritise people and community" as "Generated text should not be relayed as a substitute for the contributor’s own judgement".
When the content is AI-generated, it's very hard to suss out what, if any, human judgement was involved.
[–] wffurr 11 hours ago
[–] eschew 10 hours ago
When the content is AI-generated, it's very hard to suss out what, if any, human judgement was involved.
[–] glhpp 11 hours ago
Considering that, the article is just too bland and polished and also goes into too much historical detail, which LLMs like to do.