This seems to now be looking enforce disclosure of the use of AI.
That seems extremely difficult.
Even for a participant who wants to do "the right thing", If they have
been using AI assistance during the document development and refinement
process, I doubt even they know how much of the text was AI originated,
or even whether a significant part was.
And the enforcement mechanisms you suggest below seem to rely on the RPC
or the IESG being able to tell which parts of a document were generated
by AI. Which as far as I can tell is somewhere between difficult and
impossible. I would not even be surprised if, as some people read more
AI generated text they start unconsciously writing n the same style.
I don't mind a note suggesting that if folks know that an AI generated
significant portions of the text in an I-D, they should include that
fact in the acknowledgements. But any step beyond that seems to be
asking for trouble. And I am doubtful of the value of that request.
Yours,
Joel
On 6/6/2026 4:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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]
