<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Many use translators to write posts in foreign languages, so certainly some tool use is expected.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I am interested to hear other perspectives on this. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Regards,<br>Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Taye Medoye <daniel.medoye@gmail.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 20, 2026 8:38 AM<br><b>To:</b> rpd@afrinic.net<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 92: Request to Pause the AI Generated Posting<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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: <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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;<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Secondly, l am not aware that the Forum gives the freedom to engage in any form of criticism on the contributions made by participants. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Daniel Taye Medoye<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>