John,
On 07-Jun-26 03:16, John R Levine wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Sorry about that - My question was "do people reading text want to know if it
was generated by a LLM?"
It looks like we're talking past each other. People reading text could
want a lot of things, and that might well be one of them. You're
proposing we create a new rule that requires people to state whether they
used AI in their contributions.
I think the questions I asked a few messages ago are reasonable so if you
want that rule, could you go back and address them?
Assuming this is what you mean:
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?
The draft says "If, however, a substantial part of the document was created by
AI..."
"Created" is clear enough, but obviously "substantial" is subjective, a
matter of human judgement, and I don't see how we can ever get away from
that, as in many other judgement calls in the RFC process.
If I lie, what are the penalties?
Potentially, non-approval by the stream approving body. (There might be a
different answer in a copyright dispute, but that's not in scope here.)
Who is going to enforce it?
Potentially, the stream approving body, if the text is suspicious.
However, this is ethics, not a hard rule, so it really only works
by self-enforcement.
Do they know they've signed up to do that?
Yes, if they adopt the policy.
Regards/Ngā mihi
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
