Re: Dealing with LLMs in IETF discussions draft

On 10-Aug-26 11:51, Jay Daley wrote:
> Brian
> 
>> On 9 Aug 2026, at 08:30, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 08-Aug-26 00:37, S Moonesamy wrote:
>>> Hi Chong,
>>> One of the points in your email was about who makes the technical
>>> claims in an Internet-Draft.  At the other end there is a person who
>>> reviews the technical claims and dispute/disagree with those
>>> claims.  That person (it can be more than one person) previously did
>>> not use a LLM to assess the correctness of the claims or to submit
>>> his/her disagreement.  Is it okay for the person to use a LLM to do that?
>>
>> I think that question is unimportant. What is essential is that the
>> preson sending the message is 100% responsible for the message. Whether
>> they used a slide rule, a pocket calculator, a dictionary, a spell checker,
>> a search engine, or an AI tool, to prepare the message is irrelevant.
> 
> The key difference being that you can’t ask a slide rule, pocket calculator, dictionary, spell checker, search engine, Wikipedia, text book, online video (etc) to write the email for you and in their own words not yours.
> 
> I’m with Stephen here that accepting responsibility is irrelevant - all it will mean for some is "I commit to sending any replies to my AI so that it can write a response for me" not "I take responsibility for understanding what is written and understanding any responses".

Certainly that will happen, but I don't see what it changes about the notion of responsibility.

Yes, there could be scenarios where one AI was arguing with another, both of them doing so under the responsibility of a human identity. It's definitely a disturbing thought, but even if we know about it, there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it except moderating the identities.

     Brian