[Standards] Re: We should require AI disclosure

Hi, It is still not very clear to me what the objective is and how a requirement to disclose the use of AI achieves it. I see these angles: 1. AI may generate output that is of low quality (incomplete, vague, false, superfluous). 2. AI may generate output that includes parts of other works without attribution and/or permission (from a rights perspective). I do not see why these problems uniquely exist because of the use of 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). If you cannot formulate the requirements for quality for humans, then 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? The same holds for potential rights issues. The author is still responsible. My concern is that all future submissions will just have this 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). The statement you linked to seems like common sense and doesn't 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? I think that our author guidelines (XEP-0143) are already clear, and sense all the above boils down to this: “Authors must understand, verify, and take responsibility for every contribution they submit.” (-- ChatGPT with my prompting) While noting that this stance is not universally accepted (e.g. see <https://jme.bmj.com/content/51/4/230>), 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. Cheers, ralphm Disclosure: this message was manually (glide) typed on a OnePlus 12, 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. On 7 July 2026 17:55:54 CEST, Goffi &lt;goffi(a)goffi.org&gt; wrote: >Hi, > >This discussion is stalling. > >Meanwhile, we've got specification(s?) which have been clearly written with AI, >and I guess it will be more and more often the case. > >As a reviewer with my council hat, I would really love to at least have >disclaimer when AI is used (is it for writing whole sections, to extract a >table, to write example, to check spelling/grammar). > >Many big projects have a statement on AI use, e.g., CPython: >https://devguide.python.org/getting-started/ai-tools/ > >I think XSF should have one too. > >Do we need more discussion on standard, or should the board discuss that and >ask a team to work on a AI statement? > >Thanks >Goffi > > >Le lundi 11 mai 2026, 09:50:19 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Goffi 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 >