8 Jul
2026
8 Jul
'26
12:11 a.m.
On 8 July 2026 00:00:38 CEST, Kevin Smith via Standards <standards(a)xmpp.org> wrote:
On 7 Jul 2026, at 22:48, Ralph Meijer
<ralphm(a)ik.nu> wrote:
Yes, this is a problem. Not even hypothetically.
Can we formulate criteria that make it easier to triage? If something is "clearly
agent-driven", I am fine with a quick "nope, try again" without reading the
whole thing. But can we be more specific, objective?
Does declaring the use of AI disqualify?
How much or what type of use of AI?
What if all future contributions, including subjectively great ones, declare so?
Also, how does one prove _not_ having used AI?
But again, I do not understand why you are making a distinction between a contribution by
a human, and a contribution by a human that uses AI. In either case I expect a certain
level of quality and if the output is "slop", then the human driving the AI
tools is to blame. Or their own bad writing.
While everything you say is true at face value, I think a number of people have seen an
increase in low-effort low-quality high-magnitude contributions elsewhere because of the
use of agents allowing producing significantly sized bodies of work that take a great deal
of effort to review or repute, while having cost the person triggering the submission
little to no effort. Daniel has made the (I think reasonable) point that he’s unlikely to
be able to keep on as Editor if that role becomes having to process an increasing number
of low-quality but not low-effort-to-deal-with submissions, and I think the onward effort
of Council would also be prohibitive if such a situation were to arise. It’s a matter of
opinion whether we’ll see that happen in the XSF, but I am confident similar things are
happening elsewhere. We do, as you say, have a process that should prohibit unsuitable
XEPs being published, but the effort required to drive that process may well increase -
you would be right to assert that people could submit all the same things an agent could,
by hand-crafting them, and the quality could be similarly low, but the barrier of effort
to do that is much higher and we’ve not traditionally seen an issue with it (I also
suspect that use of agents leads to an inflated confidence in the submitted content, but
that’s just speculation) - and reading the GSoC mentor list this year has been
particularly depressing with the tales of what it’s been like for everyone. Even within
the XSF I have already watched some PRs go by that have been clearly (to me) agent-driven,
and have felt draining to read. I do not have answers, I am not inherently anti-AI, and
I do not believe that forbidding use of agents would be the best course, but I can also
see how concerns in this area could be very reasonable, and that a desire to ‘do
something’ following from that would also be reasonable
I am actually quite skeptical about AI, its limitations as well as its promise. In
particular I am wary about how people use it, and how they trust the outcome. I also
understand there's an inherent need to deal with a new reality.
However, "doing something" has to be meaningful. I don't think we can ban
the use of AI in practice. I suspect that proper use of AI becomes harder and harder to
distinguish from traditionally written contributions.
If we do continue to allow it, what is the effect of declaring the use of AI on our
processes? Should it cause a different treatment of the contribution? How?
I think we need to put this squarely on the author. Only submit stuff you have properly
proofread. You cannot hide behind AI. It is your work. Don't put in patent-encumbered
work, don't copy stuff unless allowed, don't send in slop. If that requires some
additional words in our author guidelines, please suggest some (or use the ones in my
other mail).
ralphm