re John's question - how much AI - is using a next gen spell checker enough?
but the bottom line (for the IETF) is - why? the listed author(s) is(are) claiming that they stand by what is submitted - if some AI bot created some or all of it - the listed authors are still responsible to support &, if needed, explain - so what actual difference does it mean to the IETF? sure, the authors might not be able to get a copyright but that is their issue not ours Scott > On Jun 5, 2026, at 7:22 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 06-Jun-26 10:27, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> 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. > > My case is that I think readers want to know this. Of course I could be wrong, > and that's why it needs testing on more than the people here. > > Maybe the RSWG chairs could step in... > > Brian > -- > rswg mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
