As quantum computing was mentioned above. My home town is strong in that. Both in the academic rat race (doing basic research) and also in shipping actually working devices. The latter of course due to academic funding in other places within the EU nevertheless … Classical computing I am told no way to compete, everybody knows where the facilities located.
Obviously, in a time of “Us First” commonplace yours is not the MEGA (Make Europe Great Again) (You read that term here first) answer. Are we there? I hope not.
1 Like
Found this - https://eu-stf.openforumeurope.org/ - the OSMF documentedly participating.
As far as I can tell, the European Union is contractually obliged to further the “reibungslose Funktionieren des Binnenmarkts”, no more, no less.
From that perspective, it makes me wonder why @SimonPoole did not mention the interoperable exchange of traffic closures
Tired now.
The questions are not about open data, if they were, yes then it would make sense to request that for example mobility data is released on open terms and not on such that essentially disallow reuse by OSM (see for example Germany). But that wasn’t the question.
Feedback submitted, thanks to everyone.
6 Likes
The moderation policy on chatbots is quite clear. Copying and pasting of chatbot-origin compositions is restricted to “Sharing of accurate information that contributes to general knowledge created through artificial intelligence, such as computer code, step-by-step instructions for procedures…” Responses to an RFC, which invariably involve opinions, do not fit that criterion. You are welcome to share your opinions. You must, however, compose the text yourself. As the moderation policy on chatbots states, “The talk lists and community forum exist to facilitate communication among the human beings who populate the OpenStreetMap community.” Chatbots are not human beings.
3 Likes
I think that I can understand some of what you’re saying below the line, but the way that you’re saying it detracts substantially from your argument. If I was going to write a parody response to back up @apm-wa above, it would look pretty much what you have written.
Yes! But that is exactly why people are reacting negatively to you here.
1 Like
In practice? When text looks/feels/reads/codes as being indistinguishable from one automatically generated. Like one you just posted.
This entirely misses reason for why LLM is banned: we do NOT want to overrun by people copy-pasting LLM output. LLM is not banned because it does not contain no accurate info whatsoever, LLM is not banned because it does not contain no valid arguments at all, LLM is not banned because it cannot generate claims not posted here before, LLM is not banned because all generated text is invalid.
LLM output is banned because single person copy pasting LLM output otherwise would be able to post more than every single human posting on forum combined and drown actual discussion in ocean of LLM spam.
And in practice only reasonable place for stopping LLM spam is to kill it as soon as it appears.
Please stop posting LLM output. At most ask LLM to spot mistakes in text, then based on feedback rewite your text - do not copy rewritten output with changes made by LLM, do not ask LLM to list arguments why ban on copying LLM output is a bad idea.
At current rate it is likely that we will be overrun by LLM spam in few years and forums will need to be shut down. Maybe we will move to mailing lists with hope that LLM spammers are hating mailing lists too much to spam there?
3 Likes
You are welcome to appeal to the OSMF Board of Directors per the Moderation Guidelines. The no-chatbot policy stands.
Fighting against windmills …
While herolding, at least you’re reasonable against others here.
A forum, in the first place, is a place for exchanging opinions. You don’t necessarily need to agree with any authority based on merit or senior status or anything. Feel free to down-vote anything you see fit. What puts me off is the reprimand hammer and silencing someone’s opinion based on made up reasons to treason on the main idea of the OSM project.
Cheers
You have a point, we should have engaged with the substance od your argument instead. The only problem is, there wasn’t any.