On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 3:08 PM John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? I agree with the points John makes here. More broadly, it's your burden to make the case for this requirement, not the other way around. -Ekr
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
