[PHP-DEV] AI generated mails

Mailing Lists php.internals
21

On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 7:30 PM Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:

hello,

On Tue, Aug 25, 2026, 10:36 PM Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote:

I agree with Derick. Using a translator to assist with a language barrier is reasonable, and these days they've all been replaced with LLMs (justified or not). But I would still prefer to have that explicitly stated, so we know what we're dealing with. (And can use simpler English in replies, potentially, to aid with understanding.)

Beyond that, I want to talk to humans, not slop machines. If someone's diplomatic skills are not up to the task of discussing on the list without filtering through a chatbot, then they need to work on their diplomatic skills before subjecting us to slop.

I have to interfere here again.

I explained a perfectly valid case where llm are used, and they are many orders of magnitude better than translators, even based on llm.

I experience that daily. And the primary reason the personsI work with do it is, guess it, to respect me or others.

To say here, given someone has been directly pointed to via his post, would be extremely bad taken in many cultures (read: insulting, losing face, and they will move away).

As the "official" language is English here and most oss project, I cannot let that go unnoticed.

We must be welcoming for non natice speakers. And for one, I welcome them. And if the price is to have a slightly longer mail at time, so be it. respect and welcoming must prevail.

--
Pierre

@pierrejoye

Hi,

Not trying to speak for anyone here, but it seems like the concern
about AI use on the list isn't really about helping with translation
or other genuine values of AI. That has been said explicitly more than
once, and I don't think anyone has actually argued against it.

What has been objected to, though, is a tool authoring the argument
itself, with a person just forwarding it as their own.

Which sounds more like an authorship question rather than an AI one?

If that is roughly right, then I think the problem isn't really about
using AI per se, it's probably more about
engagement/authenticity/authorship. Which is something a policy could
probably be written around.

Additionally, a written policy would make it easier for those who rely
on AI to blend in by drawing the guardrails and explicitly stating
what is and isn't acceptable. Something that would keep the list as
welcoming as it has always been without draining people's energy.

Those were just my two cents...

Regards,
Osama

22

در تاریخ سه‌شنبه ۲۵ اوت ۲۰۲۶، ۲۲:۲۰ Osama Aldemeery <aldemeery@gmail.com> نوشت:

On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 7:30 PM Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:

hello,

On Tue, Aug 25, 2026, 10:36 PM Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote:

I agree with Derick. Using a translator to assist with a language barrier is reasonable, and these days they’ve all been replaced with LLMs (justified or not). But I would still prefer to have that explicitly stated, so we know what we’re dealing with. (And can use simpler English in replies, potentially, to aid with understanding.)

Beyond that, I want to talk to humans, not slop machines. If someone’s diplomatic skills are not up to the task of discussing on the list without filtering through a chatbot, then they need to work on their diplomatic skills before subjecting us to slop.

I have to interfere here again.

I explained a perfectly valid case where llm are used, and they are many orders of magnitude better than translators, even based on llm.

I experience that daily. And the primary reason the personsI work with do it is, guess it, to respect me or others.

To say here, given someone has been directly pointed to via his post, would be extremely bad taken in many cultures (read: insulting, losing face, and they will move away).

As the “official” language is English here and most oss project, I cannot let that go unnoticed.

We must be welcoming for non natice speakers. And for one, I welcome them. And if the price is to have a slightly longer mail at time, so be it. respect and welcoming must prevail.

–
Pierre

@pierrejoye

Hi,

Not trying to speak for anyone here, but it seems like the concern
about AI use on the list isn’t really about helping with translation
or other genuine values of AI. That has been said explicitly more than
once, and I don’t think anyone has actually argued against it.

What has been objected to, though, is a tool authoring the argument
itself, with a person just forwarding it as their own.

Which sounds more like an authorship question rather than an AI one?

If that is roughly right, then I think the problem isn’t really about
using AI per se, it’s probably more about
engagement/authenticity/authorship. Which is something a policy could
probably be written around.

Additionally, a written policy would make it easier for those who rely
on AI to blend in by drawing the guardrails and explicitly stating
what is and isn’t acceptable. Something that would keep the list as
welcoming as it has always been without draining people’s energy.

Those were just my two cents…

Regards,
Osama

Hi everyone,

I want to thank Osama and Pierre for their well-articulated points. I completely agree with the distinction made here: there is a fundamental difference between using AI as a translation/grammar tool and using it to generate arguments or act as the author.

As a non-native English speaker, my goal in using translation tools has always been to ensure my technical points are clear and to communicate respectfully with the community, never to replace my own thoughts or technical arguments.

I fully support Osama’s suggestion of creating a written policy or guardrails. Having clear guidelines will help everyone, especially non-native speakers, know the boundaries while keeping the community welcoming.

Thank you all for the constructive discussion. I look forward to focusing our energy back on improving PHP!

Best regards,
Sepehr

23

‪> Hi everyone,

Hi Sepehr,

I want to thank Osama and Pierre for their well-articulated points.

Thank you

I completely agree with the distinction made here: there is a fundamental difference between using AI as a translation/grammar tool and using it to generate arguments or act as the author.

As a non-native English speaker, my goal in using translation tools has always been to ensure my technical points are clear and to communicate respectfully with the community, never to replace my own thoughts or technical arguments.

I fully support Osama's suggestion of creating a written policy or guardrails. Having clear guidelines will help everyone, especially non-native speakers, know the boundaries while keeping the community welcoming.

I would like to flag one thing about how my earlier message is being
used here, separate from whether I agree with what you've said.
I neither have the authority nor the standing to advise the very
people who maintain this lanaguage on what they should do about a
policy/governance issue, especially on something that could very
easily waste their time and effort.
What I actually offered was an observation about a pattern I'd noticed
recur over the months, a question about it, and my two-cents answer to
that question.

I'd rather that stayed a question people could take or leave, not a
suggestion that is seeking support or trying to avoid opposition.

Thank you all for the constructive discussion. I look forward to focusing our energy back on improving PHP!

Thank you... And FWIW I do think this is a genuine conversation about
improving PHP.

Best,
Osama

24

Hi Osama,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 1:48 AM Osama Aldemeery <aldemeery@gmail.com> wrote:

Not trying to speak for anyone here, but it seems like the concern
about AI use on the list isn't really about helping with translation
or other genuine values of AI. That has been said explicitly more than
once, and I don't think anyone has actually argued against it.

What has been objected to, though, is a tool authoring the argument
itself, with a person just forwarding it as their own.

I would be interested to know how to differentiate this. It will aslo
pop ups quickly during discussions.

Watermark maybe? :wink:

If that is roughly right, then I think the problem isn't really about
using AI per se, it's probably more about
engagement/authenticity/authorship. Which is something a policy could
probably be written around.

Please no more policies. It is already too much and one needs a Sr VP
of compliance to parse some of the existing one to make sense of them.

Additionally, a written policy would make it easier for those who rely
on AI to blend in by drawing the guardrails and explicitly stating
what is and isn't acceptable. Something that would keep the list as
welcoming as it has always been without draining people's energy.

If we start to add even more barriers, we are not welcoming, we are
guarding railing contributions on subjective interpretation of what
one wrote, or how.

Best,
--
Pierre

@pierrejoye

25

در تاریخ چهارشنبه ۲۶ اوت ۲۰۲۶، ۰۵:۴۹ Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> نوشت:

Hi Osama,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 1:48 AM Osama Aldemeery <aldemeery@gmail.com> wrote:

Not trying to speak for anyone here, but it seems like the concern
about AI use on the list isn’t really about helping with translation
or other genuine values of AI. That has been said explicitly more than
once, and I don’t think anyone has actually argued against it.

What has been objected to, though, is a tool authoring the argument
itself, with a person just forwarding it as their own.

I would be interested to know how to differentiate this. It will aslo
pop ups quickly during discussions.

Watermark maybe? :wink:

If that is roughly right, then I think the problem isn’t really about
using AI per se, it’s probably more about
engagement/authenticity/authorship. Which is something a policy could
probably be written around.

Please no more policies. It is already too much and one needs a Sr VP
of compliance to parse some of the existing one to make sense of them.

Additionally, a written policy would make it easier for those who rely
on AI to blend in by drawing the guardrails and explicitly stating
what is and isn’t acceptable. Something that would keep the list as
welcoming as it has always been without draining people’s energy.

If we start to add even more barriers, we are not welcoming, we are
guarding railing contributions on subjective interpretation of what
one wrote, or how.

Best,

Pierre

@pierrejoye

Hi everyone,

Please, let’s bring this discussion to an end.

Continuing this thread is only hurting PHP’s reputation and disrespects the immense hard work of esteemed contributors like Rasmus Lerdorf.

As a newcomer and a contributor specifically to the ext/intl extension, I believe there’s no reason for us to cause unnecessary tension among ourselves. The current policies are already in place, and we cannot perform miracles overnight.

Let’s focus our energy on building and improving PHP together.

Best regards,
Sepehr

26

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Schneider <cschneid@cschneid.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2026 4:21 PM
To: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: [PHP-DEV] AI generated mails

I'm not sure I want to spend time arguing with AIs and was considering
replying with "AI;DR" (AI; didn't reply) but I realize that this can be
considered rude.

Helo Mr Chris and Mr Mailing List,

I think that would be too rejecty without having rules/guidelines in place.

It would be best to have some guidelines (on the same level as "u must
bottompost") so people can read them before posting. And, on par with bottom
posting reminders, it would be fair to provide an eager newcomer with a
guiding reply, something along the lines:

It is expected to write the texts yourself on this mailing list. Please do
not write or rephrase yourself using an LLM.
If English is the problem, do not worry — there is no requirement to have
perfect English as long as you can understand what is going on. A lot of
productive contributors here are more fluent in C and PHP languages than
they are in English.
And if you must, use a deterministic translator that will represent what

you

intend to say, instead of something that the LLM will say.

Probably a native speaker can write a better and more concise version of the
above :))

Just to be clear: I realize that AIs help a lot for non-native speakers to
express themselves

I don't buy that. There's nothing about being native or non-native in having
AI speak instead of you, so... [translation below]

Lai pierādītu, ka ģeneratīvais MI nav nepieciešams, lai izteiktos, tālāko
rakstīšu latviski un tulkošu ar Google tulkotāju.

Jā, Pjēram pilnīga taisnība, ka mums jābūt pretimnākošiem pret dalībniekiem,
kam angļu valoda nav pirmā. Bet tāpēc jau nav jāprasa LLM čatam rakstīt savā
vietā. Protams, ka Google tulkotāja iztulkotais teksts nebūs perfekts un
noteikti toņa ziņā nebūs identisks tam, kā šis teksts skan latviski. Taču
tas būs daudz tuvāks oriģinālam nekā tad, ja es pateiktu savu domu ChatGPT
vai Gemini un lūgtu viņam noformulēt to angliski.

Vēl trakāk — šī teksta angliskā versija būs daudz tuvāka latviskajam
oriģinālam nekā tad, ja vienkārši palūgtu LLM rīkam noformulēt šo domu pat
nemainot valodu.
----------------
To prove that generative AI is not necessary to express myself, I will write
the following in Latvian and translate it with Google Translate.

Yes, Pierre is absolutely right that we should be accommodating to
participants whose first language is not English. But that does not mean
that we should ask the LLM chat to write for us. Of course, the text
translated by Google Translate will not be perfect and certainly will not be
identical in tone to how this text sounds in Latvian. But it will be much
closer to the original than if I told ChatGPT or Gemini my idea and asked it
to formulate it in English.

Even worse, the English version of this text will be much closer to the
original than if I simply asked the LLM tool to formulate this idea without
even changing the language.

BR,
Juris

27

‪2026年8月26日(水) 20:44 ‫سپهر محمودی‬‎ <sepehrphpr@gmail.com>:‬

در تاریخ چهارشنبه ۲۶ اوت ۲۰۲۶، ۰۵:۴۹ Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> نوشت:

Hi Osama,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 1:48 AM Osama Aldemeery <aldemeery@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not trying to speak for anyone here, but it seems like the concern
> about AI use on the list isn't really about helping with translation
> or other genuine values of AI. That has been said explicitly more than
> once, and I don't think anyone has actually argued against it.
>
> What has been objected to, though, is a tool authoring the argument
> itself, with a person just forwarding it as their own.

I would be interested to know how to differentiate this. It will aslo
pop ups quickly during discussions.

Watermark maybe? :wink:

> If that is roughly right, then I think the problem isn't really about
> using AI per se, it's probably more about
> engagement/authenticity/authorship. Which is something a policy could
> probably be written around.

Please no more policies. It is already too much and one needs a Sr VP
of compliance to parse some of the existing one to make sense of them.

> Additionally, a written policy would make it easier for those who rely
> on AI to blend in by drawing the guardrails and explicitly stating
> what is and isn't acceptable. Something that would keep the list as
> welcoming as it has always been without draining people's energy.

If we start to add even more barriers, we are not welcoming, we are
guarding railing contributions on subjective interpretation of what
one wrote, or how.

Best,
--
Pierre

@pierrejoye

----------

Hi everyone,

Please, let's bring this discussion to an end.

Continuing this thread is only hurting PHP's reputation and disrespects the immense hard work of esteemed contributors like Rasmus Lerdorf.

As a newcomer and a contributor specifically to the ext/intl extension, I believe there's no reason for us to cause unnecessary tension among ourselves. The current policies are already in place, and we cannot perform miracles overnight.

Let's focus our energy on building and improving PHP together.

Best regards,
Sepehr

Hi Sepehr

Continuing this thread is only hurting PHP's reputation and disrespects the immense hard work of esteemed contributors like Rasmus Lerdorf.

That is not for you to say.
To reconfirm your position: your using the AI that trying communicate us.
Your position is tolerated by a small number of non-native English
speakers, likes we.

However, If you undermine that trust, you will immediately lose your position.
If that happens, the community will likely conclude that there is no
point in saying anything to the AI.

Please be careful.
Yuya
--
---------------------------
Yuya Hamada (tekimen)
- https://tekitoh-memdhoi.info
- youkidearitai (tekimen) · GitHub
-----------------------------

28

در تاریخ پنجشنبه ۲۷ اوت ۲۰۲۶، ۱۴:۲۳ youkidearitai <youkidearitai@gmail.com> نوشت:

‪2026年8月26日(水) 20:44 ‫سپهر محمودی‬‎ <sepehrphpr@gmail.com>:‬

در تاریخ چهارشنبه ۲۶ اوت ۲۰۲۶، ۰۵:۴۹ Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> نوشت:

Hi Osama,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 1:48 AM Osama Aldemeery <aldemeery@gmail.com> wrote:

Not trying to speak for anyone here, but it seems like the concern
about AI use on the list isn’t really about helping with translation
or other genuine values of AI. That has been said explicitly more than
once, and I don’t think anyone has actually argued against it.

What has been objected to, though, is a tool authoring the argument
itself, with a person just forwarding it as their own.

I would be interested to know how to differentiate this. It will aslo
pop ups quickly during discussions.

Watermark maybe? :wink:

If that is roughly right, then I think the problem isn’t really about
using AI per se, it’s probably more about
engagement/authenticity/authorship. Which is something a policy could
probably be written around.

Please no more policies. It is already too much and one needs a Sr VP
of compliance to parse some of the existing one to make sense of them.

Additionally, a written policy would make it easier for those who rely
on AI to blend in by drawing the guardrails and explicitly stating
what is and isn’t acceptable. Something that would keep the list as
welcoming as it has always been without draining people’s energy.

If we start to add even more barriers, we are not welcoming, we are
guarding railing contributions on subjective interpretation of what
one wrote, or how.

Best,

Pierre

@pierrejoye

Hi everyone,

Please, let’s bring this discussion to an end.

Continuing this thread is only hurting PHP’s reputation and disrespects the immense hard work of esteemed contributors like Rasmus Lerdorf.

As a newcomer and a contributor specifically to the ext/intl extension, I believe there’s no reason for us to cause unnecessary tension among ourselves. The current policies are already in place, and we cannot perform miracles overnight.

Let’s focus our energy on building and improving PHP together.

Best regards,
Sepehr

Hi Sepehr

Continuing this thread is only hurting PHP’s reputation and disrespects the immense hard work of esteemed contributors like Rasmus Lerdorf.

That is not for you to say.
To reconfirm your position: your using the AI that trying communicate us.
Your position is tolerated by a small number of non-native English
speakers, likes we.

However, If you undermine that trust, you will immediately lose your position.
If that happens, the community will likely conclude that there is no
point in saying anything to the AI.

Please be careful.
Yuya

Yuya Hamada (tekimen)

Dear Yuya—I really like you all, but there is one thing I need to tell you as a developer.
At first, Mr. Chris snapped at me over this issue, and a few days later, Mr. Larry was extremely rude—even bringing up the “trash can” analogy—yet I didn’t say a word in return.
I don’t use AI—because AI isn’t capable of speaking so fluently.
God willing, I am set to become an official contributor to the intl extension; I am currently designing the array_str_contains function. I even work using Gmail on my phone—which is much harder than using the desktop version—yet you’ve all decided to gang up on poor old me.
Mr. Yuya, I actually included a Japanese example on my RFC page—specifically for your sake.
I am truly grateful for everyone’s comments.
sepehr

29

I don’t want to make this personal, but please stop calling people’s name
publicly on the list. This is far from what the list was and is built for.

I feel awful to read through the whole thread. This feels like a landfill for
people to point fingers to each other rather than places for serious
technical debates.

Please, stop doing that before other people brings out the mailing list’s
banning policy. If I wake up and see one of my issues and PRs have
received so many feedbacks, I’d be delighted. In the opposite, I think
I’ve made it clear enough for my feelings to these content on the list.

At this point, I have no word to say on this topic. It has been devolved into
personal attacks and rants, which I clearly don’t want to see as a waste of
everyone’s limited time and energy.

I am not accusing or mad at anyone. However, Please take this as a serious
request to stop and focus on meaningful work if people may want.

Weilin

30

2026年8月28日(金) 3:10 Weilin Du <weilin-du@qq.com>:

I don't want to make this personal, but please stop calling people's name
publicly on the list. This is far from what the list was and is built for.

I feel awful to read through the whole thread. This feels like a landfill for
people to point fingers to each other rather than places for serious
technical debates.

Please, stop doing that before other people brings out the mailing list's
banning policy. If I wake up and see one of my issues and PRs have
received so many feedbacks, I'd be delighted. In the opposite, I think
I've made it clear enough for my feelings to these content on the list.

At this point, I have no word to say on this topic. It has been devolved into
personal attacks and rants, which I clearly don't want to see as a waste of
everyone's limited time and energy.

I am not accusing or mad at anyone. However, Please take this as a serious
request to stop and focus on meaningful work if people may want.

Weilin

Hi, Sephr, everyone

I apologize that excessive attack.
I was bring my country's business practices(釘を刺す: warn) over as they were.

I apologize again.

Regards
Yuya
--
---------------------------
Yuya Hamada (tekimen)
- https://tekitoh-memdhoi.info
- youkidearitai (tekimen) · GitHub
-----------------------------

31

Yuya Hamada (tekimen)

2026年8月29日(土) 20:22 سپهر محمودی <sepehrphpr@gmail.com>:

Hello dear Yuya,

Yuya, this message was very important — that’s why I’m sharing it only with you. Due to a specific medical condition, I can only work at my computer for 1 hour per day. That’s why the design process for my functions takes a bit longer.

After this function, God willing, I will begin my work as an official contributor to the intl extension and add grapheme and Persian language functions to PHP. In one of the examples for each RFC, I’ll also include a Japanese example so you can feel assured.

Please send your reply only to my personal email.

With appreciation,
Sepehr

در تاریخ جمعه ۲۸ اوت ۲۰۲۶، ۱۰:۱۵ youkidearitai <youkidearitai@gmail.com> نوشت:

‪2026年8月28日(金) 8:24 ‫سپهر محمودی‬‎ <sepehrphpr@gmail.com>:‬

Hello Mr. Yuya,
I am sending this email to you personally because I felt uncomfortable having it go to the mailing list.
I do know PHP and C coding, but—partly to boost my standing—I used to rely on AI for my responses; I would provide the answer, and the AI would write it out.
However, I wrote this particular one myself.
If you don’t mind this approach, I could provide the answer to the AI and let it respond as usual; otherwise, I will write the responses myself, as I did this time.
Also, please forgive me for the remark I made regarding the esteemed Rasmus Lerdorf.
I look forward to your reply.
Please send your response only to me so the list doesn’t find out.
Best regards,
Sepehr

در تاریخ پنجشنبه ۲۷ اوت ۲۰۲۶، ۱۴:۲۳ youkidearitai <youkidearitai@gmail.com> نوشت:

‪2026年8月26日(水) 20:44 ‫سپهر محمودی‬‎ <sepehrphpr@gmail.com>:‬

در تاریخ چهارشنبه ۲۶ اوت ۲۰۲۶، ۰۵:۴۹ Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> نوشت:

Hi Osama,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 1:48 AM Osama Aldemeery <aldemeery@gmail.com> wrote:

Not trying to speak for anyone here, but it seems like the concern
about AI use on the list isn’t really about helping with translation
or other genuine values of AI. That has been said explicitly more than
once, and I don’t think anyone has actually argued against it.

What has been objected to, though, is a tool authoring the argument
itself, with a person just forwarding it as their own.

I would be interested to know how to differentiate this. It will aslo
pop ups quickly during discussions.

Watermark maybe? :wink:

If that is roughly right, then I think the problem isn’t really about
using AI per se, it’s probably more about
engagement/authenticity/authorship. Which is something a policy could
probably be written around.

Please no more policies. It is already too much and one needs a Sr VP
of compliance to parse some of the existing one to make sense of them.

Additionally, a written policy would make it easier for those who rely
on AI to blend in by drawing the guardrails and explicitly stating
what is and isn’t acceptable. Something that would keep the list as
welcoming as it has always been without draining people’s energy.

If we start to add even more barriers, we are not welcoming, we are
guarding railing contributions on subjective interpretation of what
one wrote, or how.

Best,

Pierre

@pierrejoye

Hi everyone,

Please, let’s bring this discussion to an end.

Continuing this thread is only hurting PHP’s reputation and disrespects the immense hard work of esteemed contributors like Rasmus Lerdorf.

As a newcomer and a contributor specifically to the ext/intl extension, I believe there’s no reason for us to cause unnecessary tension among ourselves. The current policies are already in place, and we cannot perform miracles overnight.

Let’s focus our energy on building and improving PHP together.

Best regards,
Sepehr

Hi Sepehr

Continuing this thread is only hurting PHP’s reputation and disrespects the immense hard work of esteemed contributors like Rasmus Lerdorf.

That is not for you to say.
To reconfirm your position: your using the AI that trying communicate us.
Your position is tolerated by a small number of non-native English
speakers, likes we.

However, If you undermine that trust, you will immediately lose your position.
If that happens, the community will likely conclude that there is no
point in saying anything to the AI.

Please be careful.
Yuya

Yuya Hamada (tekimen)

Hi Sepehr

Thank you for adding my name.
For your Information: There is Kanji’s in my name, Yuya is 侑弥
Could you like add my Kanji?

Regards
Yuya

–

Yuya Hamada (tekimen)

Hi

This(reply only me) is the break of internals rule, So I reply the internals.

What is your question? What I should I do?

Regards
Yuya

32

در تاریخ شنبه ۲۹ اوت ۲۰۲۶، ۱۵:۱۳ youkidearitai <youkidearitai@gmail.com> نوشت:

Yuya Hamada (tekimen)

2026年8月29日(土) 20:22 سپهر محمودی <sepehrphpr@gmail.com>:

Hello dear Yuya,

Yuya, this message was very important — that’s why I’m sharing it only with you. Due to a specific medical condition, I can only work at my computer for 1 hour per day. That’s why the design process for my functions takes a bit longer.

After this function, God willing, I will begin my work as an official contributor to the intl extension and add grapheme and Persian language functions to PHP. In one of the examples for each RFC, I’ll also include a Japanese example so you can feel assured.

Please send your reply only to my personal email.

With appreciation,
Sepehr

در تاریخ جمعه ۲۸ اوت ۲۰۲۶، ۱۰:۱۵ youkidearitai <youkidearitai@gmail.com> نوشت:

‪2026年8月28日(金) 8:24 ‫سپهر محمودی‬‎ <sepehrphpr@gmail.com>:‬

Hello Mr. Yuya,
I am sending this email to you personally because I felt uncomfortable having it go to the mailing list.
I do know PHP and C coding, but—partly to boost my standing—I used to rely on AI for my responses; I would provide the answer, and the AI would write it out.
However, I wrote this particular one myself.
If you don’t mind this approach, I could provide the answer to the AI and let it respond as usual; otherwise, I will write the responses myself, as I did this time.
Also, please forgive me for the remark I made regarding the esteemed Rasmus Lerdorf.
I look forward to your reply.
Please send your response only to me so the list doesn’t find out.
Best regards,
Sepehr

در تاریخ پنجشنبه ۲۷ اوت ۲۰۲۶، ۱۴:۲۳ youkidearitai <youkidearitai@gmail.com> نوشت:

‪2026年8月26日(水) 20:44 ‫سپهر محمودی‬‎ <sepehrphpr@gmail.com>:‬

در تاریخ چهارشنبه ۲۶ اوت ۲۰۲۶، ۰۵:۴۹ Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> نوشت:

Hi Osama,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 1:48 AM Osama Aldemeery <aldemeery@gmail.com> wrote:

Not trying to speak for anyone here, but it seems like the concern
about AI use on the list isn’t really about helping with translation
or other genuine values of AI. That has been said explicitly more than
once, and I don’t think anyone has actually argued against it.

What has been objected to, though, is a tool authoring the argument
itself, with a person just forwarding it as their own.

I would be interested to know how to differentiate this. It will aslo
pop ups quickly during discussions.

Watermark maybe? :wink:

If that is roughly right, then I think the problem isn’t really about
using AI per se, it’s probably more about
engagement/authenticity/authorship. Which is something a policy could
probably be written around.

Please no more policies. It is already too much and one needs a Sr VP
of compliance to parse some of the existing one to make sense of them.

Additionally, a written policy would make it easier for those who rely
on AI to blend in by drawing the guardrails and explicitly stating
what is and isn’t acceptable. Something that would keep the list as
welcoming as it has always been without draining people’s energy.

If we start to add even more barriers, we are not welcoming, we are
guarding railing contributions on subjective interpretation of what
one wrote, or how.

Best,

Pierre

@pierrejoye

Hi everyone,

Please, let’s bring this discussion to an end.

Continuing this thread is only hurting PHP’s reputation and disrespects the immense hard work of esteemed contributors like Rasmus Lerdorf.

As a newcomer and a contributor specifically to the ext/intl extension, I believe there’s no reason for us to cause unnecessary tension among ourselves. The current policies are already in place, and we cannot perform miracles overnight.

Let’s focus our energy on building and improving PHP together.

Best regards,
Sepehr

Hi Sepehr

Continuing this thread is only hurting PHP’s reputation and disrespects the immense hard work of esteemed contributors like Rasmus Lerdorf.

That is not for you to say.
To reconfirm your position: your using the AI that trying communicate us.
Your position is tolerated by a small number of non-native English
speakers, likes we.

However, If you undermine that trust, you will immediately lose your position.
If that happens, the community will likely conclude that there is no
point in saying anything to the AI.

Please be careful.
Yuya

Yuya Hamada (tekimen)

Hi Sepehr

Thank you for adding my name.
For your Information: There is Kanji’s in my name, Yuya is 侑弥
Could you like add my Kanji?

Regards
Yuya

–

Yuya Hamada (tekimen)

Hi

This(reply only me) is the break of internals rule, So I reply the internals.

What is your question? What I should I do?

Regards
Yuya



Hello everyone.
Dear Yuya—this was just for information;
I didn't mean anything by it.
Understood; from now on, I will abide by the rules—
provided, of course, that the members don't deem me an offender again⁸