Re: Dealing with LLMs in IETF discussions draft

I think in strict legalisms I agree, IFF we impose the barrier to insist
the human review happens, and we insist that "you posted it you said it"
even if an AI wrote it to be cut-and-pasted. That insistance is a process
cost we have to implement and review, in my opinion.

I don't think we can just sit back and assume we're ok. I think we should
take an active position in this and declare requirements which suit our
needs.

I didn't post this to achieve some mythical strawman slam-dunk outcome. I
think it says things about what legislature thinks about AI, and what kinds
of things we might want to think about, using AI. Not thinking about it is
also not in my goal set of course: I think we should have a conscious
documented path here.

-G

On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 1:51 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[email protected]> wrote:

> On 05-Aug-26 13:27, George Michaelson wrote:
> > They provide an explorer function over the legislation:
> >
> > https://ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu/en/ai-act-explorer <
> https://ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu/en/ai-act-explorer>
> >
> > I hope that helps.
>
> Yes, it does, thanks. In clause 4 of [1] we find:
>
> "Deployers of an AI system that generates or manipulates text which is
> published with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public
> interest shall disclose that the text has been artificially generated or
> manipulated. This obligation shall not apply where the use is authorised by
> law to detect, prevent, investigate or prosecute criminal offences or where
> the AI-generated content has undergone a process of human review or
> editorial control and where a natural or legal person holds editorial
> responsibility for the publication of the content."
>
> Human review and responsibility rule, OK? So I don't think this EU law has
> any impact on the text of RFCs, even assuming that RFCs cover "matters of
> public interest".
>
> [1] https://ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu/en/ai-act/article-50
>
>      Brian
>