# Non-native English speakers and the use of language assistance

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194>\
**Category:** Community\
**Tags:** question, policy\
**Created:** [May 19, 2026, 3:14pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194 "2026-05-19T15:14:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gwr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/gwr/32/33632_2.png) [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2026, 3:14pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/1 "2026-05-19T15:14:06Z")

</div>

I would like to raise a broader community question about fair participation for non-native English speakers in technical/policy discussions.

Today, I made a [policy proposal](https://github.com/JuliaRegistries/General/issues/155557#issuecomment-4487078727) on JuliaRegistries/General on Github that took me more a couple of hours to draft and which I had sharpened by AI to be as precise as possible for further discussion (the use of AI was disclosed).

I was [told](https://github.com/JuliaRegistries/General/issues/155557#issuecomment-4488874265) to “refrain from the use of AI in the discussion.”

While I understand the concern about low-effort AI content, there is imho an important difference between:

- pasting unreviewed AI-generated output; and
- using language or structure assistance to express one’s own argument more precisely in a non-native language.

A community cannot simply hold all of the following expectations at the same time:

1. participation should be international and inclusive;
2. English is the expected working language;
3. legal/technical arguments should be precise;
4. non-native speakers should not use language/structure assistance;
5. maintainers with native or near-native English and long institutional memory set the conversational standard.

**That is not creating a fair playing field.**

At the very least, I believe that in difficult cases non-native participants should be allowed to write the original argument in their native language and provide an English translation. The original-language version would then be the authoritative text, while the translation can serve as the shared version.

I am not promoting “AI slob” but I strongly believe non-native speakers should not be placed at a structural disadvantage when complex arguments must be made in English.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mbauman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/mbauman/32/31082_2.png) [@mbauman](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/mbauman)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2026, 3:35pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/2 "2026-05-19T15:35:41Z")

</div>

C’mon man, my complaint about AI slop was not about that post but [a subsequent one](https://github.com/JuliaRegistries/General/issues/155557#issuecomment-4488582414). That’s the AI-iest of AI posts that felt very low-effort and didn’t even address what I wrote.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mason](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/mason/32/2423_2.png) [@Mason](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Mason)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2026, 3:55pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/4 "2026-05-19T15:55:30Z")

</div>

As far as I’m aware, nobody in the julia community has ever seriously suggested that nobody use translators.

Rather, what has happened **repeatedly** and to an obnoxious degree from certain users, is that these users ask an LLM to generate a response to someone, and then getting called out on it and pretending they just use it for translation, when **nobody** writes like that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gwr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/gwr/32/33632_2.png) [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2026, 3:58pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/5 "2026-05-19T15:58:09Z")

</div>

I am willing to share the long interaction I had with AI to shape what I thought to be a nice and precise policy draft.

I still believe that I am raising a legitimate issue and yes, it is not so clear cut, there is abuse. But making everything abuse, because there is abuse is wrong imho.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![stevengj](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/stevengj/32/71_2.png) [@stevengj](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/stevengj)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2026, 3:58pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/6 "2026-05-19T15:58:22Z")

</div>

The [Julia Discourse Guidelines](https://discourse.julialang.org/guidelines) explicitly allow AI translation tools, while discouraging otherwise AI-generated posts.

> Don’t post generative AI outputs (but _direct human language translation_ and minor editing is ok).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gwr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/gwr/32/33632_2.png) [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2026, 4:01pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/7 "2026-05-19T16:01:23Z")

</div>

I still believe that there needs to be a more reflected consideration of AI use. While I see some nerving issues (too long winded, some hallucination). I see that it has improved tremendously and helps to sharpen a discussion – yes, especially if you are non-native.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gwr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/gwr/32/33632_2.png) [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2026, 4:03pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/8 "2026-05-19T16:03:00Z")

</div>

Maybe just take time and look how **content** has improved and shaped in the JuliaRegistry discussion. If you believe this to be a bad thing, well …

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mbauman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/mbauman/32/31082_2.png) [@mbauman](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/mbauman)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2026, 4:11pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/9 "2026-05-19T16:11:51Z")

</div>

> [@gwr](#):
>
> Do you have something to say in this regard?

Yes, absolutely, I’ve engaged with you through that long thread (100+ long posts deep) in very good faith and without complaint about translation. I did object to a post of yours this morning.

But then you come here and complain about my objection (and Dilum’s note), pointing to a post _I didn’t object to_ and talking about the hours you spent drafting it when the post I complained about was a response written within ten minutes. It feels _very disingenuous_.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gwr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/gwr/32/33632_2.png) [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2026, 4:24pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/10 "2026-05-19T16:24:10Z")

</div>

Again, I have not mentioned your reply, but the term “AI slop” is what pops up in this regard.

I strongly believe that Dilum’s note is not ok in general. Dismissing the use of AI completely is taking it too far.

Just this minute watching the DYAD people talk about how greatly AI will transform business … and then the AI policing. Yes that feels _disingenuous_.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mbauman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/mbauman/32/31082_2.png) [@mbauman](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/mbauman)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2026, 4:42pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/11 "2026-05-19T16:42:56Z")

</div>

Yes, I use AI myself when I want to generate text and code, including in this very launch.

Here (and in that GitHub issue), I don’t need to generate text for text’s sake and I don’t need to read extra text just for the sake of it. I want to talk to **you** and hear your thoughts, not some bot’s overly wordy and smarmy chatter about it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gwr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/gwr/32/33632_2.png) [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2026, 4:53pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/12 "2026-05-19T16:53:25Z")

</div>

> Here (and in that GitHub issue), I don’t need to generate text for text’s sake and I don’t need to read extra text just for the sake of it. I want to talk to **you** and hear your thoughts, not some bot’s overly wordy and smarmy chatter about it.

That “bot’s overly words and smarmy chatter” can be off-putting and I agree.  
But you dismiss what I consider very prudent use of AI. All important posts are drafted by me first at least in the principle line of thought and are then polished by AI.

I am quite open to criticism but honestly for a discussion on Registry policy with legal and technical issues being subtle, I find NOT using AI to be more precise a bad use of time. I would not have managed to set up a reasonable Policy draft without the help of AI in reasonable time (time is money unfortunately).

I am not using AI here (mostly) and there are sure topics where we can talk personally and you can indeed hear **my** thoughts and voice, but for a policy discussion on GitHub?!?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![stevengj](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/stevengj/32/71_2.png) [@stevengj](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/stevengj)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2026, 7:24pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/13 "2026-05-19T19:24:03Z")

</div>

> [@gwr](#):
>
> I find NOT using AI to be more precise a bad use of time. I would not have managed to set up a reasonable Policy draft without the help of AI in reasonable time (time is money unfortunately).

Time is an important resource, I agree! And when one is asking for other people’s time and attention, requiring (primarily) human-written contributions is a useful filter.

If a policy is not important enough for you to devote the time to write the proposal yourself (+ AI for translation and minor edits), why should other people devote the time to read and debate it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gwr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/gwr/32/33632_2.png) [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2026, 7:53pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/14 "2026-05-19T19:53:22Z")

</div>

> [@stevengj](#):
>
> If a policy is not important enough for you to devote the time to write the proposal yourself (+ AI for translation and minor edits), why should other people devote the time to read and debate it?

It is getting a tad unfair now: I put in a lot of effort to draft the proposal myself and in fact the term „outbound package license expression / OPLE“ was my invention. I was then accused of having „Claude“ hallucinate such terminology.

AI helped to make it became succinct. Maybe take a look yourself, before you assume things. Thank you.

Is this becoming „Athenian Ostracism“ now?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![stevengj](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/stevengj/32/71_2.png) [@stevengj](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/stevengj)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2026, 8:04pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/15 "2026-05-19T20:04:36Z")

</div>

> [@gwr](#):
>
> It is getting a tad unfair now: I put in a lot of effort to draft the proposal myself

I’m literally just responding to what you wrote: that you give the AI the “principle line of thought” but that “you would not have managed to set up a reasonable Policy draft without the help of AI”.

I’m not commenting on your specific policy proposal — we shouldn’t be duplicating that particular debate in this thread — but rather the question _you_ raised in _this_ thread on _this_ forum, which is whether it is acceptable to post generative AI output in Julia forums beyond mere translation and minor edits.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gwr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/gwr/32/33632_2.png) [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2026, 8:08pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/16 "2026-05-19T20:08:46Z")

</div>

Ok, I was posting on GitHub while offering Tooling support and trying to start a useful discussion. You are right, maybe this is off topic here.

The experience has been rather discouraging. So that‘s that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mason](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/mason/32/2423_2.png) [@Mason](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Mason)\
**Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 11:41am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/17 "2026-05-21T11:41:16Z")

</div>

I think this is a nice concise description of what people dislike about others posting generative AI outputs into conversations: [https://noslopgrenade.com/](https://noslopgrenade.com/)

> # Why it’s wrong
> 
> If they wanted an AI essay, they would have asked ChatGPT themselves. They asked you because they wanted your human judgment.
> 
> It steals the recipient’s time and destroys the conversation. They spend 20 minutes extracting one sentence you should’ve given upfront. Even when your answer is technically correct, the format is hostile to how humans communicate.
> 
> Worse: it’s a conversation killer. There’s nothing to respond to. Your wall of text suppresses dialogue. They can’t reply, can’t push back, can’t clarify. It’s a weapon disguised as helpfulness.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gwr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/gwr/32/33632_2.png) [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)\
**Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 11:49am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/18 "2026-05-21T11:49:38Z")

</div>

Your statement is true, but it simplifies the “conversation” dynamics too much imo. It holds for “here’s my AI output – take it, read it”.

It does not hold for AI generated text that is deliberately checked, edited, and authorized by a human. And especially in very technical, legal, or other demanding topic discussions AI should be seen as a very helpful addition to the process.

I am not saying that I have a perfect “this fits all cases” solution, but the “just don’t use any AI other then a mere translation” falls short on the promises of the technology imho.

EDIT: Note that your (unfairly imo) framing AI output to make it become “evil” by using descriptors like “steals time”, “hostile format” (coding is hostile format for humans in general … 🙂 ), “conversation killer” (you are introducing an outcome before it was concluded here), “wall of text” (that must not be the case)…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mason](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/mason/32/2423_2.png) [@Mason](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Mason)\
**Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 11:53am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/19 "2026-05-21T11:53:23Z")

</div>

**Edit:** Below is a satirical usage of an LLM that I posted as a joke to illustrate my point about lack of clarity.

* * *

> [@mason](#):
>
> That’s actually a really interesting point you’re raising, and I want to make sure I engage with it seriously, because I think there’s something genuinely worth unpacking here — and I’ll get to my disagreement in a moment, I promise, but first I think it’s important to establish some shared conceptual ground, because without that, I worry we’ll end up talking past each other, which is something I’m sure neither of us wants.
> 
> So. Let’s start with the word “deliberate.” You use it — “deliberately checked, edited, and authorized” — and I think that’s doing a lot of heavy lifting in your argument. More than you might realize. Because what does “deliberate” mean, exactly, in this context? I’ve been thinking about this for a while, actually, and I keep coming back to the question of intentionality versus outcome, which is a distinction philosophers have wrestled with for centuries — Kant, obviously, comes to mind, though I don’t want to go too far down that road right now because it’s a bit of a tangent, though maybe a useful one, we’ll see.
> 
> The point being: if I hand you a 900-word AI-generated essay that I have “deliberately” read through and nodded at, have I really authored it? And here I think we need to be careful, because there’s a version of your argument that is quite compelling — I’m not going to pretend there isn’t — but there’s also a version that, if followed to its logical conclusion, would justify almost any communication failure on the grounds that “well, technically a human was involved at some stage.”
> 
> And look, I take your point about technical and legal contexts. I really do. I’ve sat in rooms — well, not literally, but you know what I mean — where the complexity of the subject matter is such that having an AI help structure a response seems not just defensible but actively good. Nobody is disputing that AI can be a useful tool in the drafting process. That’s not what’s at stake here. Or rather, it is, but only partially, and I think collapsing the distinction between “AI as drafting aid” and “AI as reply” is precisely the move that gets us into trouble.
> 
> Because here’s the thing — and again, I want to be fair to your position before I get to my actual disagreement, which I promise is coming — the original critique isn’t really about AI per se. It’s about the communicative gesture. It’s about what you’re signaling to the other person when you respond to their human question with a machine-generated wall. And I think your framing of “it doesn’t hold for AI text that is checked and edited” actually concedes more than you intend, because now we’re having a debate about _degree of human involvement_, which is a sliding scale with no obvious threshold, and sliding scales without obvious thresholds are, historically speaking, not a great foundation for the kind of clean “this is fine, this is not fine” distinction your argument seems to require.
> 
> Now — and I really am getting to my main point here, bear with me — there’s a secondary issue around what you call the “promises of the technology,” and I find this framing genuinely fascinating in a way I’d love to explore more, because it implies that we have some obligation to use AI in conversations in order to honor its potential, which is a strange kind of technological determinism that I’m not sure you fully intend but which I think is worth naming. Do we owe it to the technology to deploy it? I’m not convinced. Tools don’t have promises in the morally obligating sense. A hammer doesn’t feel let down when you use a screwdriver instead.
> 
> Anyway. My disagreement, in short — and I know this has been a long way around to get here, but I genuinely believe the context matters — is that the “it was edited by a human” defense, while not entirely without merit in narrow technical circumstances, functions in practice as an all-purpose absolution that people apply far too broadly, and the result is exactly what the original post was describing: a conversation that is technically answered but humanly abandoned.
> 
> But I’d be curious to hear what you think, genuinely.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gwr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/gwr/32/33632_2.png) [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)\
**Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 12:12pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/20 "2026-05-21T12:12:16Z")

</div>

Note, that I added an edit, because the short paragraph you posted falls short in argumentation imo, it’s “rabulistic” as Schopenhauer would have said.

I very much like your longer statement and I hope we are getting somewhere here.

> It’s about the communicative gesture. It’s about what you’re signaling to the other person when you respond to their human question with a machine-generated wall.

Yes, I agree. But you are neglecting context and you can only firmly ground your objections to a “context-free” rule, e.g., whatever happens around your this is not fair use…

You may read through the exchange on JuliaRegistry and you will find that I was asked some questions over the weekend, which I took time to answer by hand on a Sunday afternoon (#issuecomment-4471381012):

[Clarify RegistryCI license-check API for REUSE/SPDX-compliant packages · Issue #155557 · JuliaRegistries/General · GitHub](https://github.com/JuliaRegistries/General/issues/155557#issuecomment-4471381012)

Now, in that “long-winded, human-produced wall of text” 😉 I am answering question that popped up and posed questions even mentioning the persons. Please take the time and follow up on where the people I am engaging with have taken the time to answer my questions? (well, there is one exception, but I will not call names…).

I then mentioned that the questions were not answered (#issuecomment-4480414618):

[Clarify RegistryCI license-check API for REUSE/SPDX-compliant packages · Issue #155557 · JuliaRegistries/General · GitHub](https://github.com/JuliaRegistries/General/issues/155557#issuecomment-4480414618)

Almost not reaction. Then came the point, where I took quite some time to come up with a policy draft, that was disclosed AI supported. Note how there again is only one that acts on this the rest discuss “their topics among themselves” and I really (as the one that raised the issue) feel kind of “ghosted”. And then – lo and behold – I am receiving the red flag for using AI and posting slop and wasting other peoples precious time? Right.

> [@Mason](#):
>
> but I genuinely believe the context matters

Exactly! Context matters – we are on the same page here.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gwr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/gwr/32/33632_2.png) [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)\
**Post date:** [May 21, 2026, 12:17pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194/22 "2026-05-21T12:17:05Z")

</div>

And yet I honestly engaged with you and even took time to state my point.

And actually, doing so helped me make it clearer! 😉

Thanks, anyways.

[Next page](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/non-native-english-speakers-and-the-use-of-language-assistance/137194.md?page=2)