On Sat, 6 Jun 2026, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 06-Jun-26 06:17, John R Levine wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026, Jay Daley wrote:
This is based on the assumption that AI produces slop. In my experience
the more effort you put into it, the better the quality of output. It
will not be too long before many, many people can instruct AI well enough
to produce high quality output.
That's a reasonable point, but with a prompt that detailed, would the AI
output now be a derivative of the prompt and/or the training? Who knows?
Still think it's fine to ask people to volunteer info about their AI use
but premature to change anything based on it.
Nothing in any version of the draft suggests changing anything, except
requiring disclosure. I don't really understand why that is regarded as
undesirable or onerous.
It's intrusive, vague and unenforcable. How much AI do I have to use
before I have to disclose? If I lie, what are the penalties? Who is
going to enforce it? Do they know they've signed up to do that?
R's,
John
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
