From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: AI slop "contributions" to IETF working groups
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2026 14:25:19 -0500
Message-Id: <460BCE12-4C45-45D0-94C8-83B8E2D45049@gmail.com>
References: <7b702e8f-d2be-5b08-e262-33fbed538f98@foobar.org>
In-Reply-To: <7b702e8f-d2be-5b08-e262-33fbed538f98@foobar.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID-Hash: CKVDY6YZBNKKIKOYVDV5ZTNCHLID5QEZ
CC: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1Ujk7yKfWEnCNHYbyuE_SG8lOn4>

I=E2=80=99m sorry hear this!=20

I tell my students that I cannot be the first person to read their assignmen=
t. If it=E2=80=99s generated with AI and I am the first to read it, it usual=
ly takes significantly longer than how they crafted the assignment themselve=
s and follow the directions accurately. I would assume a similar pattern for=
 IETF work. Since a lot of the work can be cutting edge it=E2=80=99s likely a=
n LM is not trained on related content or innovating on ideas.

It would be good to hear from the ISG if they have any guidelines in mind fo=
r AI usage.

Thank you,
Kathleen

Sent from my mobile device

> On Feb 7, 2026, at 1:38=E2=80=AFPM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:=

>=20
> =EF=BB=BF A couple of working groups I'm on have been seeing AI slop email=
s recently. I.e. emails where the content seems curiously badly thought-thro=
ugh, and usually formatted in a way that looks like it was cut-n-paste from s=
ome llm engine, followed up by peculiarly polite emails either acknowledging=
 the often egregious misconceptions / misunderstandings, or denying that the=
re was any issue with the original position.
>=20
> There are plenty of good uses for LLMs, one of which is overcoming the eng=
lish language barrier. However it looks like some people are asking LLMs to c=
onsume ietf WG content, then asking the llm to address the queries - possibl=
y with some intermediate steering - and then cut-n-pasting the output back i=
nto the WG.
>=20
> My concern with general  LLM replies is that people don't have unlimited t=
ime to engage with IETF WGs. Each manually written email reply takes time an=
d thought, but an LLM reply can be shot out within seconds, regardless of wh=
ether it generates useful output or complete garbage. That raises the bar fo=
r the people manually writing emails and sharing their experience / knowledg=
e to review what are complex, specialist documents. Longer term, this approa=
ch to IETF working groups is going to burn people out, both in terms of enga=
gement and general good will.
>=20
> Are there any general IETF guidelines for how to use LLMs constructively? (=
Or have I finally attained pure dinosaur status by not hopping on the llm ba=
ndwagon?)
>=20
> Nick
>=20