Re: Dealing with LLMs in IETF discussions draft

Hi Jay,

On 07/08/2026 03:24, Jay Daley wrote:
> Hi Stephen, Chong
> 
>> We just pushed a -01 version of the draft [1] that lists (most of)
>> the arguments raised on the list as that may be a more useful
>> starting point for a discussion on a new list.
> 
> Thanks for this.
> 
> The one big thing the document does not tackle is the assertion that
> where the AI introduces something the human did not know about, then
> the human will inevitably trade off their own understanding of that
> for the acceleration of output that AIs enable.

I did include a bullet in the -01 draft to remind me/us of
your point (search for "acceleration") but your point was too
subtle to capture properly so I left it at that for now. I'd
guess if/when we have a venue for this discussion then it'll
be interesting to try chat about/capture such most subtle
points.

Cheers,
S.

> 
> In addition, the hypothesis of section 4 of the document relies on
> two pillars that I think obscure the real issues:
> 
> 1. The claim that only humans can create new knowledge, but not AIs,
> and that is what is being introduced by the human into the discourse:
> 
>> Genuine innovation --- the creation of new conceptual territory
>> rather than more efficient mapping of existing terrain --- remains a
>> human capacity.
> 
> 
>> The symmetry is clean: humans originate, AI executes. Humans open
>> new territory; AI operates efficiently within it.
> 
> 
> I doubt very much if every message sent with the use of an AI is
> creating new knowledge rather than applying existing knowledge and
> would be surprised if it happens at all.  Engineering is, by
> definition, the application of existing knowledge to new problems.
> It is more likely that authors who think this is happening are
> mistaking knowledge that is new to them as knowledge that is new to
> humanity.
> 
> We could always test it by asking an AI "is this message introducing
> any genuine innovation or is it just applying existing knowledge?"
> 
> 2.  The claim that the human being the decision maker somehow shapes
> what is said:
> 
>> the AI is functioning as a thinking partner within a bounded space,
>> not as an originator. The human remains the decision-maker about
>> what to accept and what to discard. What falls outside this paradigm
>> is delegating the thinking itself: asking AI what position to take,
>> what arguments to make, or what conclusions to draw
> 
> The key point that is being obscured there is that the AI will
> inevitably be introducing that human to concepts that are new to that
> human and if they are incorporated in any way, either directly or by
> linkage/comparison, then the AI is responsible for that innovation
> not the human.  This is exactly the same as if I were to sit down
> with an expert in a particular field and discuss my proposed email
> with them and then ask them to draft if for me.
> 
> 
> This conversation has made it clear to me that this is about so much
> more than someone putting their name to the output and taking
> responsibility for it, because it seems as if the boundary between
> what the AI introduced and what the human introduced is hard for the
> human to self-identify.
> 
> 
> Jay
> 
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

wnsEABYIACMWIQQwbnhHy1kPJkWsM6fk2On5l6gz3QUCanW+UAUDAAAAAAAKCRDk2On5l6gz3UO2
AQCtEng9yuecirHHBY366hLUAeUKFUM/jPO1Oj3O+evB2gD/bSXPYa7BjkxKOfp4+Ssf3HA6huwQ
ky3O8x8R9tW9YQk=
=age/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----