12 May
2026
12 May
'26
7:24 p.m.
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