[Standards] Re: We should require AI disclosure

On 08/07/2026 09.52, Goffi wrote: Meijer a écrit : AI, and why this isn't covered by an author's existing responsibility to ensure quality and the pre-conditions for assigning ownership rights to the XSF per its IPR policy (in particular sections 3.1 and 3.2). In creating the contribution, this may be true. Like Dave commented elsewhere in the thread today, I am not convinced about increased effort on triaging (initial submission) or review of individual XEPs to move between states. If you mean the volume of submissions or XEP PRs, then we need to figure out how to lighten that effort. In the past, for example, PRs were not the approach to getting a XEP changed. You'd discuss your suggestions with the author(s) and then they would make changes. The Editor might be involved, but there is no such requirement unless (about) to move between states. I agree with Dave that putting all the scrutiny at the beginning of your process (unlike before) does not help. Instead, accepting a new contribution with light review allows the distribution of the load to the rest of Standards JIG. I.e. people will start reading, commenting, attempting to implement, etc. how does declaring use of AI make things better? And if you can, and a submission complies, how does it matter that AI was used in the process? How would you handle “AI-tainted” submissions differently? written, I know that the text and references can be hallucinated, and that there can be more boilerplate text than a human would do. quickly for hallucinated values. probably read it no differently as I read pure human submission. bother and reject it. I'm reading a human or machine generated content. What criteria do you use to make these judgements. Why is there an assumption that if a human created it, you do not have to be as thorough? responsible. disclosure as boilerplate, and a recipient cannot assess how deep the impact of the use of AI is. With the accelerating growth we see in both the capabilities and the use of AI, this becomes increasingly hard. We will not have gained anything substantial. In that regard it reminds me of the Evil Bit (RFC 3514) / Malicious Stanzas (XEP-0076). engine "llama.cpp", which we can hardly accuse to be "anti-AI", ask for that, you can check PRs there: https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/pulls I agree that allowing submissions by PR makes it easier for agents and people to submit them and that may contribute to increased volume. I also think that code is different from protocol specifications. But as I mentioned above, if you cannot triage quickly, this requires changes to how heavy your triage process is. I do not see how an optional declaration makes any of this better. actually require disclosure. Consider this document again, but conceptually replace “the use of AI” with the “use of a keyboard”. Does having such a statement change the outcome of our standards process? need a driving license, I don't need one to walk". The scale is not the same, with LLM you can generate easily tons of text looking on the surface more or less OK. I love car analogies. No, my suggestion is more like you asking how I got to the XMPP Summit, and you valuing me differently when I came by car. Besides your personal preferences, this should not have any bearing on my contributions in that venue. And I will certainly not show you my drivers license or discuss its impact on the environment _in that context_. sense all the above boils down to this: every contribution they submit.” (-- ChatGPT with my prompting) https://jme.bmj.com/content/51/4/230>)t;), I think it is suitable for our standards process. Feel free to use this phrase in a concrete proposal, like a PR to XEP-0143. not be enforceable and AI is a great tool for accessibility and many other things. But I'm advocating for requesting a disclosure (maybe not mandatory, but strongly suggested). Explain that we have human reviewers behind, and that we'll reject AI slops specifications. Use of AI need to be fully checked, and text should be reduced to essential. The later is one of the main painful point with content generated by or with AI: it's longer than necessary, and that make it harder to review. pull-request. As I wrote earlier, if you can provide concrete changes to, say, XEP-0143, I would be happy to judge them on face value. I am fine with stronger indication of the responsibilities we require of authors (like my proposed text). Preferably, you still need to define how you "reject AI slops" using objective criteria. If "gut feeling" is the process, then you can already do this. FWIW, the paper I referenced is an in-depth discussion on the responsibilities of human authors on scientific papers, which should be an interesting read for anyone that wants to seriously discuss this topic. There are rebuttals to it, too, but unfortunately they are not as open-access as this CC-licensed paper. using Google Board, in Thunderbird for Android. Conversing with AI may have influenced my thought process. Except where explicitly noted, no excerpts of other works were included in this message. industry, it seems legitimate to me to state our position, like many other organisations are doing. This was not meant as a sarcastic jab at all. It was meant as a concrete example of how hard it is to usefully declare the use of AI. I specifically mentioned Google Board and glide typing, because it uses machine learning and AI for writing each word based on how you glide. It has auto-correction, spell checks, etc. I didn't run the whole text through an LLM myself to correct my writing, though, and so there should be no hallucinations (other than my own) or unsupported citations. If you want to have optional declarations of the use of AI, then you also need to specify what that declaration could look like. If it is free-form, then you will get things like my example. ralphm _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org