[ChristianJacobs]

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]

Although: "An exception will be made for LLM-assisted translations if you are having trouble accurately conveying your intent in English."

[ChristianJacobs]

I 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]

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]

As 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?

[bjackman]

I 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)

[adastra22]

There is a carve out exception for this in the doc.