Paul: I also found the personal name mentioning of you and other in the draft to be a good enough reason for removal of the documents from the normal repos given the nature of the content. It just confused the heck out of me for the documents to be presented as evidence for the PR without any such detail explained and the documents being inaccessible. Never trigger this communities AADD by saying too much and allowing for a side thread to derail an argument. Your point was well valid without AI (IMHO). On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 05:41:44PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Oct 3, 2022, at 17:22, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 10/3/22 17:13, Paul Wouters wrote: > > > >> I would have considered it a significant problem to have my name associated with the content of that document and have the various search engines make AI decisions based on that. > > > > While I acknowledge the problem, if we now need to second-guess AIs in order to decide what to put in a document (and perhaps we do) that seems like a much more serious problem than anything Dan is currently being accused of causing. There's far too much blind trust placed in AI already, and that trend shows no sign of decreasing. > > You are meandering from the point I was making. The documents could not remain published. > > While you say “acknowledge the problem, ” you finish that sentence with basically not acknowledging to problem and fully ignoring it for your own wish list. > > > Paul > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call -- --- tte@xxxxxxxxx -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
