Re: AI disclosure [was: AI slop "contributions" to IETF working groups]

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 04:42:15PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Define generated?
> 
> As far as I-Ds are concerned, the question I suggested was:
>  1. Was AI used in the production of this draft? (Y/N).
> That's binary. We can't reasonably ask for details.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now, i have not yet tried this for my drafts, but for other texts i wrote (outside
IETF), i did use on occasion chatbots to rephrase my english. Typically after
sentences exceeded 500 characters or the like. I am pretty sure that what
i got back from that was something i could have achieved also with non-AI
writing assistant software. But last i looked they where all a lot less
simple/convenient to use.

I guess one could still try to stick to your question if there was
some additional definition text that explains what type of use of AI
could be excluded from explicit acknowledgement. And try to define
such english language / style improvements as such an exception.

> Whether AI usage matters is (like an IPR disclosure) a judgment call.
> I think we'll have to leave that to the normal process. If it produces
> a better RFC, that's great. If it produces rubbish, we already know
> how to deal with it.

I guess in the first place, people would query the authors for more
details during last-call if they do have possible issues with some
uses of AI. In that respect, its probably better to suggest a
new section of the "To Be Removed by RFC-Editor" chapter that explains
exactly what/how AI was used.

Cheers
    Toerless

> As far as emails, reviews, etc., are concerned, I think we probably
> need to keep it equally simple - request people to add a rider such
> as "AI contributed to this text." After that, it's in the hands
> of the reader.
> 
>    Brian
> 
> > 
> > Yes, some LLM output is entirely prompt based. The workflow that I
> > observe is that the human author will start with a prompt, and then
> > iterate, progressively refining the prompt until getting an acceptable
> > result. After how many iterations of prompt/observe/refine is the result
> > still "AI generated"?
> > 
> > But that's certainly not the only workflow. Another one would be for the
> > human author to write a draft, and then ask the LLM to improve it. Is
> > that AI generated"?
> > 
> > Yes another workflow is to do something like that paragraph by
> > paragraph, resulting in a mix of human written and partially AI
> > generated paragraphs. Is that "AI generated?"
> > 
> > And then you have the workflow in which the human author starts typing
> > the beginning of a sentence, and the AI helper proposes a continuation
> > that the author may or may not accept. One could argue that each
> > sentence in the document is either written or approved by the author. Is
> > that still "AI generated"?
> > 
> > We have a valid concern about copyright and plagiarism. I think we
> > should express us in these terms, rather than the blunt approach "is
> > this AI generated?"
> > 
> > -- Christian Huitema
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > It does seem to me that we need something added to the Note Well ASAP.
> > > Is the
> > > IESG paying attention?

-- 
---
[e-mail]