[Standards] Re: We should require AI disclosure

Hi Goffi, Thanks for raising this topic. It is one that interests a lot of people - the quick responses to your initial message show that, too. As for bringing this before Board: I think the discussion so far shows there is far from consensus on whether the current IPR policy sufficiently addresses AI-assisted contributions, or whether additional policy/guidance/disclosure requirements/procedural changes are needed: Some participants argue the existing policy is already sufficient, while others believe AI-generated material introduces significant risks that are not adequately addressed today. Given that, my suggestion would be to continue the mailing list discussion a bit longer to clarify concrete problem statements and possible outcomes. That way, the Board can benefit from the technical and legal perspectives being surfaced here. I believe this will reduce the risk of prematurely forcing a decision, before the tradeoffs are better articulated. I'm particularly interested in the formulation of concrete, actionable proposals. I think that is where the real challenge lies, especially given that there appears to be agreement on the following points: * The legal situation is jurisdiction-dependent and evolving. * Enforcement of any strict prohibition would be difficult in practice. Once the discussion produces a clearer set of possible approaches, I think it would make sense to bring those to Board for consideration. Kind regards,   Guus On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 7:50 PM Goffi <goffi(a)goffi.org> wrote: Should this matter be on the board agenda? Do we want to discuss it more here first?  Thanks Le 11 mai 2026 09:50:19 GMT+02:00, Goffi <goffi(a)goffi.org> a écrit : Hello everybody, I would like to bring a discussion on AI policy. We can't really ignore anymore that modern models have become very capable, and I suspect that they are used for spec authoring. This raises, I believe, copyright issues: if someone use AI to redact a whole section of a spec, how can we be sure that it's not an existing specs for some other place, possibly under copyright, that is copied or paraphrased? How can an author guarantee that it's original work (hint: they can't)? I think that there are 3 distinct uses: 1. As a light formatting/checking help, for instance to generate a table from a human written section, to correct the formulation of a sentence, or to draft an example. This is notably useful for non native English speakers. 2. As a help to search existing state of art on some feature, or any kind of data, without writing anything in a protoXEP. 3. As a way to generate whole sections. Instinctively, and If we put aside ethical and ecological concerns about LLMs, I think that 1. and 2. are OK, and 3. should be forbidden. And in all cases, it should be disclosed. I would like your feedback on this matter, in particular people with legal knowledge. I would like to avoid a flamewar, I know that this topic is sensitive and there opinions are highly divided, please express your opinion calmly. The fact is, we can't ignore this anymore. Should this be discussed with board or council? Thanks. Best, Goffi _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list --standards(a)xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email tostandards-leave(a)xmpp.org