Seeking suggestions: what MusicBrainz work could benefit from LLM assistance?

[chaban]

@afrocat

A bot that enters thousands of destructive edits will inevitably make mistakes, and there may not be enough people looking to catch those mistakes.

Humans make mistakes too but many edits (including destructive ones) are not reviewed at all.

I’d suggest those who don’t vote to do it for a month and try to enter the Top 25. It’s not hard when a two-digit amount of votes suffices. (Bonus points if you reach the yearly Top 25)

I’m already trying to reduce the voting queue by approving lots of trivial stuff:

Database statistics - Timeline graph - MusicBrainz

As a famous person once said: Voting is important

---

@IvanDobsky

There is zero record of people checking edits that don’t need a vote.

There is: Abstain

@IvanDobsky

A bot can create thousands of edits for no cost, but us editors checking those edits only have so much time

There are limits to how many edits are allowed to make. The same does not apply to human editors and there are far more human editors than bots.

@IvanDobsky

It is bad enough watching editors merging recordings on just length and ISRC matches which cause enough trouble on their own

So, the problem is humans and not bots using the same standards?