Re: AI slop "contributions" to IETF working groups

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

Not to disagree with anything said, what would people want from our
mechanistic processes when a breach is discovered, especially when it's
discovered late in process like during AUTHOR48

If you want specific outcomes like a stall, or a reject then it's going to
need careful definition and probably implies other process cost like
appeals.

G (no hats)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2026, 10:28 Cheng Li, <c.l=[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Agree with Bob and Brian that we need to request a disclosure of using AI.
>
> I do not like to read an AI generated document, especially, without human
> checking, feeling unprofessional and uncomfortable.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Cheng
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 李呈 Li Cheng
> Mobile: [phone](中国电话)
> Mail: [e-mail]
>
> *发件人：*Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
> *收件人：*[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *时 间：*2026-02-10 04:14:21
> *主 题：*Re: AI slop "contributions" to IETF working groups
>
> On 08-Feb-26 14:55, John Levine wrote:
> > It appears that Bob Hinden  <[e-mail]> said:
> >> I like the idea of requiring a disclosure that an Internet Draft was
> written with AI tools.  I agree probably not for emails.
> >
> > I expect that the people whose drafts most suffer from being written by
> an LLM will lie about it, either because
> > their English is too poor to understand the rules, or they have perverse
> incentives like an an employer that
> > gives them a bonus for publishing an RFC.
> >
> > Then what?  I'm not saying we shouldn't ask, but I'm saying we need to
> be prepared for noncompliance.
>
> Of course, but if we make it a submission requirement - check the "AI
> used" box - there's really no harm, no shame.
>
> Actually there are perhaps two boxes to check:
>
> 1. Was AI used in the production of this draft? [yes/no]
> 2. If yes, did the authors personally verify the AI-generated material?
> [yes/no]
>
> The attachment was generated by ChatGPT.
>
>     Brian
>