[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 92: Request to Pause the AI Generated Posting

[Gugu Dhlamini]

Dear Mike,

I support the use of AI-assisted drafting. I pay for the tool, I choose
when to use it, and I remain responsible for every message I submit. The
software is not participating in the PDWG. I am.

The list may address actual misconduct such as spam, impersonation,
automated flooding, or excessive duplication. It should not police lawful
writing tools simply because some participants dislike them.

Participation should be judged by substance and conduct, not by whether
someone used modern technology to express a view. Otherwise, familiar
participants turn personal preference into an unwritten permission system.

My tools are my choice. My words remain my responsibility.

Regards,
Gugu

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026, 5:49 pm Taye Medoye <daniel.medoye at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Mike,
>
> I do hope that the usefulness of AI in assisting to generate relevant
> information is not being undermined here, as contributions on writing tools
> tend to suggest. In this regard, l want to align with the position of
> Mike, to the extent of his disapproval of the use of AI to swamp the list
> with long messages in a denial of service sort of attack.......
>
> However, the discussion is drifting from the proposal into judgments
> about who is speaking and how they prepared their words.
>
> That is a wrong test.
>
> A participant may use translation, editing, or drafting assistance and
> still remain fully responsible for the position expressed. The policy
> question is whether mandatory hierarchical naming is necessary,
> proportionate, and limited to a genuine technical invariant.
>
> Operational benefits are relevant, but they do not automatically create
> policy authority. Nor does support from established participants become
> “community consensus” merely because those voices are familiar.
>
> The co-chairs should separate distinct arguments, test the evidence, and
> avoid turning participation into mandate. The community may advise,
> support, warn, and object. It does not acquire ownership over dissent.
>
> I think the use of AI generated information should be viewed in the
> context of how it is projected to address the issue of concern, and its
> veriability.
>
> Regards,
>
> Taye Medoye
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 at 15:55, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
>
>> I am very happy that this list has some traffic, and separate from the
>> AS-SET issue, the issue of AI generated posts is enormously interesting not
>> only to this RIR policy list, but to all of them.
>>
>>
>>
>> My position is that there are two issues contained. One is the swamping
>> of the list with AI generated posts. The other is the concept of treating
>> AI posts like any other post.
>>
>>
>>
>> While I am against the use of AI to swamp the list with long messages in
>> a Denial of Service sort of attack, I believe the principle of avoiding ad
>> hominem arguments means that we have to treat the AI generated arguments
>> the same as if they came directly from the pen of the poster. That is to
>> say, ignore everything but the arguments being made, not the use of AI. It
>> is the arguments that matter, not the speaker.
>>
>>
>>
>> I expect this to bubble up in other RIR policy lists as time goes on, it
>> would be good to  have some kind of principled response.
>>
>> Many use translators to write posts in foreign languages, so certainly
>> some tool use is expected.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are ways to block participants who transgress in other ways and
>> those who post repeated AI slop to swamp the list should be so treated.
>>
>> But unless there is an attempt by an individual to swamp the list, the
>> posts should be treated as if written by the poster, that is like every
>> other post.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am interested to hear other perspectives on this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Taye Medoye <daniel.medoye at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2026 8:38 AM
>> *To:* rpd at afrinic.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 92: Request to Pause the
>> AI Generated Posting
>>
>>
>>
>> In regard to the ensuing antagonistic reponses relating to the call for
>> the pause of AI generated mails, l align with the position expressed by
>> Noah for obvious reasons:
>>
>>
>>
>> Firstly, the well referenced Policy Development Process (PDP) on open and
>> unecumbered participation and expressions remains sancrosant, and a guiding
>> principle. I think this priciple should be observed always;
>>
>>
>>
>> Secondly, l am not aware that the Forum gives the freedom to engage in
>> any form of criticism on the contributions made by participants.
>>
>>
>>
>> Above all, l subscribe to the view that, while AI may be good in
>> assisting with information as may be sought concerning any subject matter,
>> l do not think it has the capacity to meet the prinicple of originality
>> expected in any written literary work, whether in research or for
>> informative diseemination purposes.
>>
>>
>>
>> The bottom line remains that, in line with the framework for
>> particiapting in any discussion on this Forum, mutual respect for views
>> should be upheld.
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel Taye Medoye
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260720/87487a4c/attachment-0001.html>