On Thu, Jun 4, 2026, at 12:21, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > * If, however, a substantial part of the document was created by AI > this must be disclosed, typically in the Acknowledgements section. This > requirement is to avoid any confusion about the authorship of the > document and to ensure that its readers are not misled.
Why let people duck responsibility that way? Every use of AI disclaimers I've ever seen was used in an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for the text. That can be OK in some contexts, but if we are talking about contributions to RFCs, this sort of requirement only shields people from owning up to the words they are asking the community to publish. I'd prefer if there be a *prohibition* on such notices. That might also justify prohibiting this acknowledgment: This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. As a reader of an RFC, I almost negatively care about the tooling in the general sense. There are places where tooling is important context, but those would be exceptional circumstances, not the common case (I've mentioned tooling in RFC 8448, for example, as it is relevant in that case). > I definitely don't think the RSWG should get into a discussion of > copyright, I don't think we can avoid it entirely, but it seems sensible to keep it out of scope for this effort. -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
