On 04-Jun-26 16:22, Martin Thomson wrote:
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?
It doesn't do that at all, read in context. I expect to post the next version
tomorrow (sorry, there's no repo yet so you can't see the context today).
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).
Yes, in general I do agree, and probably 10 years from now nobody will care
about AI-generated text any more. But IMHO *today* people do care and as Eliot
keeps saying, it's what RFC readers care about that matters.
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.
Exactly.
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
