[Standards] Re: We should require AI disclosure

On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 at 18:08, MSavoritias via Standards <standards(a)xmpp.org> wrote: I think your last suggestion actually handles the "definition of bad", or rather, defines a "definition of good enough" that I think - with maybe some tweaks - is ideal. Right. I think (hope!) we have this already. I refer to this as the copyright warranty. I'm less bothered about this, but I see the logic, and think it's covered by Guus's PR (of Ralph's words). If you want clarification, I mean that obviously it's sensible to understand the spec you're submitted in all its details, but I'm not sure we need a warranty to that effect. It equally obviously does no harm, though, so I've no objections either! I think this needs tweaking but the essential concept - that other people support the submission - is really important. This does two things: - It means that the kind of mindless AI slop that I think we're all rightly concerned about never gets traction - not because it's AI, but because it's mindless slop. - It also means that the early stage workload is offloaded from Council. Council only need to take notice of submissions that actually gain any kind of traction in the community. I would s/one of the members of XSF/participants in the Standards SIG/ because we've not selected our membership on the basis of technical scrutiny, and it just feels like if a ProtoXEP is getting positive discussion and engagement on the standards list it's probably good for Experimental. Council's effort is then a judgement call on that, rather than having to scrutinise the specification itself as much. Your parenthetical opinion is far from universal. First, the situation with code is radically different to that for text, and second, the copyrightability of AI output varies heavily by jurisidiction and human effort involved. Here in the UK, for instance, we have existing primary legislation (from 1986!) that says LLM output is copyrightable. Other jurisdictions have case law concerning the extremes of AI output, so we know that a XEP coming from a US citizen solely generated by a single prompt of something like "Create a new XEP for something" would likely not be copyrightable. But, this doesn't matter, because by requiring the author to warrant they can assign copyright, we push that liability onto the author. Hoorah! All these are code based, and our concern here is prose. We're protected in any case because of the warranty we demand from submitters. You can stop reading here if you want, the rest is just saying "I understand the argument but reject it". There's an argument that because the training data for LLMs was (possibly misused) copyright code, the output is a derived work (in copyright terms) of the original training data. This is supported because at least in some cases in the early days, if you asked for particularly niche code, you'll end up with output looking very similar to pre-existing projects. I have not duplicated these results, and I absolutely tried hard - I have the only open source code based on certain specifications which are not public, so niche in some interesting ways, but I've seen other claims and have no reason to doubt it can (or could) happen. The problem with this is that few people are making this argument with prose - people actually complain that AI generated prose doesn't look human enough - and also nobody makes this argument with human generated anything. I can fully assure you that this email is not considered a derived work of Asimov or Bujold or Scalzi, despite the fact I have read all three an almost unhealthy amount. Similarly, the code I write has never been considered a derived work even though I certainly read other people's copyright code to learn how to write it. Whether or not the LLMs were originally trained with copyright works in contravention of their licences is a whole other matter, but from a purely legal perspective I think that's between the copyright owners and the LLM developers. You are welcome to take an ethical stance on that one on a personal basis. Dave.