Re: We should require AI disclosure

--===============3080465348774324164==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1P50jcF3Se2ZZ6n7RIeXRQ";
 micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"

--nextPart1P50jcF3Se2ZZ6n7RIeXRQ
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; protected-headers="v1"
From: Goffi <[email protected]>
To: XMPP Standards <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Standards] Re: We should require AI disclosure
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2026 09:52:22 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0

Hi,

Le mardi 7 juillet 2026, 21:16:07 heure d=E2=80=99=C3=A9t=C3=A9 d=E2=80=99E=
urope centrale Ralph Meijer a =C3=A9crit :

> [SNIP]
> I do not see why these problems uniquely exist because of the use of AI, =
and why this isn't covered by an author's existing responsibility to ensure=
 quality and the pre-conditions for assigning ownership rights to the XSF p=
er its IPR policy (in particular sections 3.1 and 3.2).

The scale and effort required is not the same with AI.

> If you cannot formulate the requirements for quality for humans, then how=
 does declaring use of AI make things better? And if you can, and a submiss=
ion complies, how does it matter that AI was used in the process? How would=
 you handle =E2=80=9CAI-tainted=E2=80=9D submissions differently?

I would read it differently. If I know that a whole section is AI written, =
I know that the text and references can be hallucinated, and that there can=
 be more boilerplate text than a human would do.=20
If AI is used to extract table or make examples, I'll probably check quickl=
y for hallucinated values.
If AI is used for slight reformulation and spelling/grammar, I'll probably =
read it no differently as I read pure human submission.

If a request is slop (low effort fully generated AI), I'll probably not bot=
her and reject it.

In any case, I would appreciate and consider polite to be informed if I'm r=
eading a human or machine generated content.
=20
> The same holds for potential rights issues. The author is still responsib=
le.=20
>=20
> My concern is that all future submissions will just have this disclosure =
as boilerplate, and a recipient cannot assess how deep the impact of the us=
e of AI is. With the accelerating growth we see in both the capabilities an=
d the use of AI, this becomes increasingly hard. We will not have gained an=
ything substantial. In that regard it reminds me of the Evil Bit (RFC 3514)=
 / Malicious Stanzas (XEP-0076).

This is not what I'm seeing in other projects. Even the local inference eng=
ine "llama.cpp", which we can hardly accuse to be "anti-AI", ask for that, =
you can check PRs there: https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/pulls

>=20
> The statement you linked to seems like common sense and doesn't actually =
require disclosure. Consider this document again, but conceptually replace =
=E2=80=9Cthe use of AI=E2=80=9D with the =E2=80=9Cuse of a keyboard=E2=80=
=9D. Does having such a statement change the outcome of our standards proce=
ss?

This is a very poor comparison. It's like saying "I don't see why we need a=
 driving license, I don't need one to walk". The scale is not the same, wit=
h LLM you can generate easily tons of text looking on the surface more or l=
ess OK.

> I think that our author guidelines (XEP-0143) are already clear, and sens=
e all the above boils down to this:
>=20
>     =E2=80=9CAuthors must understand, verify, and take responsibility for=
 every contribution they submit.=E2=80=9D (-- ChatGPT with my prompting)
>=20
> While noting that this stance is not universally accepted (e.g. see <http=
s://jme.bmj.com/content/51/4/230>), I think it is suitable for our standard=
s process. Feel free to use this phrase in a concrete proposal, like a PR t=
o XEP-0143.

To clarify my (current) position: I'm not asking for an AI ban, it could no=
t be enforceable and AI is a great tool for accessibility and many other th=
ings. But I'm advocating for requesting a disclosure (maybe not mandatory, =
but strongly suggested). Explain that we have human reviewers behind, and t=
hat we'll reject AI slops specifications. Use of AI need to be fully checke=
d, and text should be reduced to essential. The later is one of the main pa=
inful point with content generated by or with AI: it's longer than necessar=
y, and that make it harder to review.

We could start to have this as a template/popup when doing a pull-request.

> Disclosure: this message was manually (glide) typed on a OnePlus 12, usin=
g Google Board, in Thunderbird for Android. Conversing with AI may have inf=
luenced my thought process. Except where explicitly noted, no excerpts of o=
ther works were included in this message.

No need to be sarcastic here, this is a problem seen across the whole indus=
try, it seems legitimate to me to state our position, like many other organ=
isations are doing.


Best,
Goffi
--nextPart1P50jcF3Se2ZZ6n7RIeXRQ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

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

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEsNZvWyEnjW9SVudbKqmcu6xuKwwFAmpOAbYACgkQKqmcu6xu
KwwgVAgAsHcBUK70GeuLDrxfT1/fDWlP2rY6JicNefDnxrNfngJtyy2Kk+4sC1dL
+FciYd1jJ1UoL4yGc9/zh1BJZTE5xKkvApo5Q/Moow/j2qEG/AqqNxIls3DE2fuI
5Vb45ho1whMbfSeqWmRFV6vfk2je/P5F5TADEECTlp8bcdpiDgU/WPGwJaTB4cI9
ihcqtLDJ9lYgbXw7jG2twFpDBxFpLgJBzDnNge/RRvVarycemN058t1d/9wFNt4J
iAibqPZJePMi8ZL4LNwGvGqj8fKRfBYBwY0elL80wuGkuWzTHeTvtEYeuphz3olM
VBTmT9fPGk9d0Q3VTN8ar1eLDhMU/A==
=Zxj3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1P50jcF3Se2ZZ6n7RIeXRQ--




--===============3080465348774324164==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

--===============3080465348774324164==--