Re: Dealing with LLMs in IETF discussions draft
Robert Sparks <[email protected]> Fri, 31 Jul 2026 11:16:32 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------2rbpHr7h1JfEvnQRS60kytLG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
inline
On 7/31/26 10:13 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> On 31/07/2026 13:43, Orie wrote:
>> What do you mean by "know how to interpret"?
>
> Isn't that described in the draft? If not, be interested
> in fixing that.
A stray thought that I wanted to capture and here seems maybe a good
place to insert it.
"Voice" in IETF email correspondence is a thing. We learn to read each
other's messages (like the very terse two above) in the "voice" of the
sender. It's part of why AI generated or restated content sticks out.
That idea is scattered through the draft, but not explicitly mentioned.
Perhaps at least the risks discussion should more deeply explore the
consequences in the quality of interaction when the original
contributor's "voice" is being lost.
(I asked Claude to rewrite Stephen's message above. The result, while
preserving "fidelity", was _definitely_ not something Stephen would write).
>
> S.
--------------2rbpHr7h1JfEvnQRS60kytLG
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>inline</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/31/26 10:13 AM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:[email protected]">On
31/07/2026 13:43, Orie wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;">What do you mean
by "know how to interpret"?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Isn't that described in the draft? If not, be interested
<br>
in fixing that. <br>
</blockquote>
<p>A stray thought that I wanted to capture and here seems maybe a
good place to insert it.</p>
<p>"Voice" in IETF email correspondence is a thing. We learn to read
each other's messages (like the very terse two above) in the
"voice" of the sender. It's part of why AI generated or restated
content sticks out. That idea is scattered through the draft, but
not explicitly mentioned.</p>
<p>Perhaps at least the risks discussion should more deeply explore
the consequences in the quality of interaction when the original
contributor's "voice" is being lost.</p>
<p>(I asked Claude to rewrite Stephen's message above. The result,
while preserving "fidelity", was _definitely_ not something
Stephen would write).</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:[email protected]"><br>
S.
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------2rbpHr7h1JfEvnQRS60kytLG--