Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietf@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9120013480870
	for <ietf@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed,  2 Sep 2026 23:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1;
	t=1788415576; bh=PIKC2vflU2wz9+aFa2pcd7EUy0SOMNFufKFVippOCQY=;
	h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To;
	b=G+XsxhlZr872UG54LACIyCL/iXpnYX/nWaZqT/ylxgMtxIkGx5uI6BR8AM6yDd8kR
	 ZaFPXgdUwWQXQtIXds+SjtMHiMZ8i5E44Cv7LloFVu5dXm9OlLgrYhQziu9O8DeDGW
	 /3aLawyWvLm0mP5/To3N7Z/mZ2VMb4HudbVteD0Y=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
	DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,
	RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001,
	RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
	SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
	header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31])
	by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id xY4_aiLY6fN6 for <ietf@mail2.ietf.org>;
	Wed,  2 Sep 2026 23:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [89.167.44.90])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256)
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0451D13480857
	for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed,  2 Sep 2026 23:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon)
 with ESMTPSA id C09125D955
	for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Sep 2026 09:06:08 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eggert.org; s=dkim;
	t=1788415568;
	h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to:
	 references; bh=efFGYorEBXFm/txQhf07gRvwE0BAJKHYMUtTcnTEY7g=;
	b=cbFTMvrkqKdifn6iwIvRiZpAOTar4XPCYqWkn6ZXFhQbzc4Cy/FImkx0pkRxSyH0b7SLIs
	poWrm03oYdLjYMt5bBVgRf78aztMymy6Jon6nqsPQGxovzKGxie5RVgSBf0jUp41YmGh4d
	WypMVbYBhxHrZxvL9vKPzK6VbDTEYwaA4I9GPcVDkM6H9C9JcQn+P9RSLiozXbWrFIpxD3
	AvPi58E8829zPJU3H0HvxDiIAPFddb1W/17+NTG8KlltQs8EEbOp7d+zEysxMdJXPxBy5L
	xJrg4MA9OMf1rmTds7jwMVA9w37XHrVKThvYOgDNQWeqFIoyxirDc6rpeP1idg==
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_B2E9960D-507A-47D0-ABDD-D48ADB219206";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.700.51.1.1\))
Subject: It'll come back to personal relations more (was: Re: Controlling the
 flood of 'AI slop' independent Internet-Draft submissions)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2026 09:05:55 +0300
References: <0B31E97F-71B6-47AF-A2D5-3B6B4A960539@live555.com>
 <CAMm+LwiO+FhaaRp9fqN6CzVykh+-h0YyTY5Hc59=0uAuCoyXvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4EEA27B8-ECBB-4C6C-B5D3-2CD9C7A0B184@tzi.org>
 <C5AA6CE7-81C8-4549-A548-1E3E6661B496@cs.ucla.edu>
 <CWXP265MB6315FF6F184B719BDD594D40C2B72@CWXP265MB6315.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <MN2PR17MB4031D7DFE9EEB87209719C60CDB72@MN2PR17MB4031.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
 <apjqZjOxuwuMD2le@mit.edu>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <apjqZjOxuwuMD2le@mit.edu>
Message-Id: <74B66DD8-7391-40C0-8B36-4A5783F06522@eggert.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.700.51.1.1)
X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.2
Message-ID-Hash: ZIM3NRANTDERTECRGRW3PGBPYJQEMHUO
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZIM3NRANTDERTECRGRW3PGBPYJQEMHUO
X-MailFrom: lars@eggert.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency;
 loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ietf.ietf.org-0;
 header-match-ietf.ietf.org-1; nonmember-moderation; administrivia;
 implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject;
 digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list,
 intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational,
 and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uv0j32FG3KQWZI1wAb9b4v-f1Qo>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-leave@ietf.org>


--Apple-Mail=_B2E9960D-507A-47D0-ABDD-D48ADB219206
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Hi,

I believe the issue of fully or partially AI-generated IETF =
contributions is here to stay.

(Let=E2=80=99s not open the can of worms of whether they *can* actually =
be IETF contributions, given that we require licenses be granted to the =
IPMC.)

I don=E2=80=99t see  a future in which the AI genie is fully being put =
back into the bottle, and AI can be useful in accelerating standards =
work if used responsibly and correctly.

(Again, without opening the cans of worms on whether how training =
material was/is being sourced, what AI is doing to society in general, =
etc., etc.)

I also don't think that tooling, -00 submissions restrictions, etc. can =
be more than a stopgap. I think they will help some with preventing =
DDoS-like events. But I also think we=E2=80=99re just generally going to =
see more contributions by more participants - which is not inherently =
bad, we=E2=80=99ve been discussing how to grow the community for decades =
now.

The issue is of course the initial quality of those new contributions, =
and the amount of community time needed to review and vet them. This is =
pretty much the exact problem we have in open source, where PRs are now =
cheap to generate and the cost is shifting to core review, which is not =
(yet?) similarly cheaply done.

For myself, this will probably mean that I=E2=80=99ll be quicker to =
ignore or disregard new contributions from folks I have not had a =
history with, unless maybe I see someone else I do have a history with =
meaningfully engage. Or whether the contributions is squarely in an area =
I care a lot about.

If more people in the community will do this, which I think is not =
unreasonable, the downside may be that the IETF will become *less* open =
to new participants, and not more. Genuine new participants with =
worthwhile ideas will have a harder time being spotted in the =E2=80=9CAI =
slop=E2=80=9D, and that=E2=80=99d be a shame. How can we fix *that*?

Thanks,
Lars


--Apple-Mail=_B2E9960D-507A-47D0-ABDD-D48ADB219206
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=zWj0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_B2E9960D-507A-47D0-ABDD-D48ADB219206--

