From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:46:40 -0800 Received: from mail-oa1-f57.google.com ([209.85.160.57]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vLq0d-0003ey-46 for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:46:40 -0800 Received: by mail-oa1-f57.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3ec7afb4b7asf75071fac.0 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:46:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1763588793; x=1764193593; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:sender:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tVuxuN6ry/aDjV9qPKL9ukoHNue9zeCfhhJe8tW9390=; b=VL5JaN58x62m/CmTRU5D4PFy3PdgcGnngTE1uCW4ZF+8fSz6s44keKFic0m4KwpwVT /LSILiWcl8WcRP6fBH7TWbuLtpKJu+yH7vidY0axv3A6CaypVbzOWClLCCM1T6G7lqRS qKa40fm0ZryjeJmHH7uzxBCj/lztHuzwbxhtYUsC2uH85uhT58bk2bjcFU20broBCldE u8oEDjArJUOTqEueGLaHF9IQDY2ZRG0JSHKGUzHN0UjK5NATYUUVdxh8sgpIeP5PXXtq Yx8HBOzZAIj+Xb7ROJkoMXc3PBbE/DTWjdHFaR1GCumRLqJTifdlNlEek4Li/hhcrPz7 iKeQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1763588793; x=1764193593; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tVuxuN6ry/aDjV9qPKL9ukoHNue9zeCfhhJe8tW9390=; b=boTs7VtvItTl3blxc0qp7y2LT3+GU5FyORJKYH0aGqgcGVlkMGmd4I9fUtIfMsPIPo nCVt4nVnakwRFRuNBNAozQlcSlo6m6lqYW4XwLRJOOjWs7hNyv2Y4JBz7kEHUdNnNjNF iDOCodI1ApgKCLynKOkuT2qqy4cPINJMm4UpdkhRJ6vki4a2Xu3wgH+rjK2/I9gJ/pLa 4BitMiotTv31f44kYN3f5KG/lNoFqCe9y/herBvTEljxEmH8xkjCYLpR3m3eSqJSRDJq sPZV7doqCfommCco+upzaiGcyk4KpGgrGAnxvc+VT28BCXA0RXCsBp6RyGiMP/psGlko 8a3w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1763588793; x=1764193593; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:x-beenthere :x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=tVuxuN6ry/aDjV9qPKL9ukoHNue9zeCfhhJe8tW9390=; b=VOqulUhFwKQw8liye8FiIyiMNFgYrTD4H+YggkrlDX+dCl68TfsvsEr9t6XF/UzSK+ B/vKKSwfJVm5NMGU50CQlY1CiAYBtjK/68loLhsD51GGwtvmp6i/3aTgjuhpwdThOy2p Xmu0icBABh4NfiqybDM/iOzHukAncEPMR1YruSqHuZNzs/knaXNX5XT2awvWsPluWkHz AABoDav90HgVe26LFqudC+yYVWIfOZ1xFjfQJCOCNrrCKRGiH9qMG+fjVUvTsdGplig9 Zxj2Q7iTjIzak3Kc0k1UuJeTdrrLzJAnHPtcxa/68c6b+3hPiE1sG7onjNOjwt5Ij8Ez juuA== Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUpBqtUGU8tsulVB1pqVwwncHssJ1fTL6zSFPIKrc0zD+NoFdCTjL2I7pUQaqTYaWiXY0gO33rGjMal@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwqVhvsIKm+qUz3oDmwgRjePCocS25RHsB+3YiXqMMMkcag+G3n t912yKuF77AswDJwPy/SvbKhaRY7xtZWkp0Qx5aWi4CMxsrW16i7L5+L X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHEYp4DrDy2R0dkBnX1+2B7qWTRPGks1EEXxrKH+gumQ0GVto4V7sodGThyMluf2/eGMUofQw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:69b4:b0:3e8:9cd1:d626 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3ec9a5b63dfmr609735fac.32.1763588793003; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:46:33 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h="Ae8XA+Yi7VM5U0HHGCKQubBv8C0GnNBo5Kyt+Ij8CaC/NtKAmQ==" Received: by 2002:a05:6870:c1d2:b0:3ec:401f:488b with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3ec9b3e6f51ls95883fac.1.-pod-prod-03-us; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:46:29 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:2386:b0:44f:f747:f9f with SMTP id 5614622812f47-451001f9163mr246114b6e.36.1763588788913; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:46:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 2002:a05:690c:4042:b0:785:e55d:2dfd with SMTP id 00721157ae682-78a6bfa4f22ms7b3; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:21:01 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a53:acc1:0:10b0:641:f5bc:697d with SMTP id 956f58d0204a3-642f7e7dc84mr348411d50.73.1763587261242; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:21:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:21:00 -0800 (PST) From: Jon Atack To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List Message-Id: <624c9e1f-ffb8-4165-83f4-d445f8777476n@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: <205b3532-ccc1-4b2f-964f-264fc6e0e70b@murch.one> <3a66dbbe9a9c46566c8a9a16ccb1cc91@dtrt.org> Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Motion to Activate BIP 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_191024_1115189902.1763587260861" X-Original-Sender: jonnyatack@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) ------=_Part_191024_1115189902.1763587260861 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_191025_1491143261.1763587260861" ------=_Part_191025_1491143261.1763587260861 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi list, I agree with Greg Maxwell's thoughts on AI use. We have been seeing quite a bit of AI-generated PRs being thrown over the= =20 fence at us in the BIPs repository. In a few cases, the proposed fixes are useful. In many others, they seem to be a waste of review/maintenance/moderation=20 bandwidth and time, and are demotivating to deal with. I am also aware of BIPs that turned out to have been largely generated or= =20 rewritten to final form by LLMs. I am not a lawyer, but the copyright=20 situation WRT such BIPs seems unclear and evolving. This was not the=20 principal motivation of the BIP 3 addition about AI/LLM use -- not wasting= =20 our time is -- but is a context that may need keeping tabs on. Personally, I don't wish to spend time manually reviewing AI slop or=20 hallucinations. Due to what we're seeing and to what Greg rightly describes above, I think= =20 we'll need to set up auto-review by LLMs in the CI pipeline for (a) a=20 degree of confidence grade of AI being used, and (b) perhaps an initial=20 technical review. Similar to Drahtbot in Bitcoin Core and to what I see in= =20 use in other organizations that I review for. For now, these tools will vitally need to be followed by human review and= =20 subjective judgment calls on our part. The BIP 3 section about reducing judgment calls is probably unrealistic at= =20 this time and in need of an update before activation. Best. On Tue, Nov 18, 2025, 7:18=E2=80=AFPM Greg Maxwell wrot= e: No doubt *you* are able to make good documents with or without the aid of= =20 AI. With outright AI 'authorship' you immediately run into potential copyright= =20 issues-- which I think is the origin of the "generated by" prohibition,=20 otherwise I think disclosure would be sufficient. Taking a step back: is Bitcoin's welfare maximized by permitting LLM glurge= =20 submissions in standards documents? In some cases it's benign, I readily=20 agree, in others its harmful. But the number of good submissions that=20 could be made would hardly be increased by LLMs (being limited by expert=20 proposers with good ideas) but the number of potential poor submissions is= =20 increased astronomically. So I think it's pretty clearly a net harm to=20 have text authored that way. I've never had an impression that drafting was at all a limiting step in=20 writing BIPs, though even to the extent that it has been at times it's=20 possible to use LLMs in a review capacity to make authorship much easier=20 ("What's missing / unclear?") without resorting to using it to author. There is a particularly clear pattern at least with current LLM tools that= =20 users who lack the skills to have authored the work without an LLM are=20 generally unable to recognize when the LLM is full of crap (and even=20 sometimes when they should know better), so unfortunately they're only=20 benign to use in the hands of those whose need is the least. =20 And as a reviewer outside of Bitcoin I've found LLM powered proposers to be= =20 absolutely the worst to deal with. Because they're not submitting their own= =20 words and ideas, they're unable to change their thinking in response or=20 explain sufficiently to change yours--- the interactions often degrade to= =20 them just copy and pasting their chatbot back to you. Because it's cheap= =20 to generate more text they also tend to flood you out with documents=20 several times longer than any human author would have bothered with. I think LLMs have generally created something of an existential threat to= =20 most open collaborations: Now its so easy to get flooded out by subtly=20 worthless material. Many projects, including, Bitcoin have long struggled= =20 with review capacity being limited and a far amount of time waste by=20 thoughtless (or even crazy!) submissions, but now it's automated and even= =20 the most well meaning person may now make submissions that are as bad as=20 the most deviously constructed malicious submissions could have been in the= =20 past, not even know they are doing it, and can make a dozen proposals=20 before lunch without even breaking a sweat. On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 12:06=E2=80=AFAM David A. Harding = wrote: On 2025-11-04 15:10, Murch wrote: > Summary of changes since BIP=E2=80=AF3 was advanced to Proposed: > [...] > - that BIPs submissions may not be generated by AI/LLM=E2=81=B5 > [...] > =E2=81=B5 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2006 I strongly disagree with this change. If I were to begin working on a=20 new BIP today, I would use AI throughout the process. I'd ask it to=20 help me create a todo list of what should go in the BIP; I'd ask it to=20 create a draft based on existing BIPs, my todo list, and whatever other=20 work products I had (e.g. prototypes); I'd then ask it to help me refine=20 the document until I was satisfied. I would, of course, review every word of the draft BIP before submitting=20 it for consideration and ensure that it represented the highest quality=20 work I was able to produce---but the ultimate work would be a mix of AI=20 and human writing and editing. I think considerate use of AI would be even more valuable for people who=20 are less comfortable with writing technical English-language documents=20 than I am. For example, non-native literates, people with disabilities=20 that make text input difficulty, and those who recognize that they're=20 bad writers. The PR forbidding AI doesn't go into any detail about its motivation,=20 although it references a previous discussion[1] where a low-quality BIP=20 PR was opened using mostly AI-generated content. I'm guessing the=20 motivation is that AI (by itself) generates low-quality technical=20 content, BIPs should be high-quality technical content, and therefore we=20 should ban the use of AI. However, as mentioned in the previous discussion, the BIP process=20 already requires high-quality content.[2] AI-generated content can be=20 high-quality, especially if its creation and editing was guided by a=20 knowledgeable human. Banning specific tools like AI seems redundant and=20 penalizes people who either need those tools or who can use them=20 effectively. I advocate for reverting the first hunk of BIPs repository PR 2006. -Dave [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2005 [2] "After fleshing out the proposal further and ensuring that it is of=20 **high quality** and properly formatted, the authors should open a pull=20 request to the BIPs repository." --BIP3, emphasis added --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= =20 "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an= =20 email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit=20 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/3a66dbbe9a9c46566c8a9a16ccb1cc= 91%40dtrt.org . --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= =20 "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an= =20 email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit=20 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAAS2fgRV1aZ9xvAhBriZ%3DXdmYf5= CvrvXWXsjVD07uynivW_qkg%40mail.gmail.com=20 . --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= 624c9e1f-ffb8-4165-83f4-d445f8777476n%40googlegroups.com. ------=_Part_191025_1491143261.1763587260861 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi list,

I agree with Greg Maxwell's though= ts on AI use.

We have been seeing quite a bit of= AI-generated PRs being thrown over the fence at us in the BIPs repository.=

In a few cases, the proposed fixes are useful.<= /div>

In many others, they seem to be a waste of revie= w/maintenance/moderation bandwidth and time, and are demotivating to deal w= ith.

I am also aware of BIPs that turned out to = have been largely generated or rewritten to final form by LLMs. I am not a = lawyer, but the copyright situation WRT such BIPs seems unclear and evolvin= g. This was not the principal motivation of the BIP 3 addition about AI/LLM= use -- not wasting our time is -- but is a context that may need keeping t= abs on.

Personally, I don't wish to spend t= ime manually reviewing AI slop or hallucinations.

Due= to what we're seeing and to what Greg rightly describes above, I think we'= ll need to set up auto-review by LLMs in the CI pipeline for (a) a degree o= f confidence grade of AI being used, and (b) perhaps an initial technical r= eview. Similar to Drahtbot in Bitcoin Core and to what I see in use in othe= r organizations that I review for.

For now, thes= e tools will vitally need to be followed by human review and subjective jud= gment calls on our part.

The BIP 3 section about= reducing judgment calls is probably unrealistic at this time and in need o= f an update before activation.

Best.
<= div dir=3D"auto">
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025, 7:18=E2=80=AFPM Greg Maxwell &= lt;gmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
No d= oubt *you* are able to make good documents with or without the aid of AI.

With outright AI 'authorship' you immediately run= into potential=20 copyright issues-- which I think is the origin of the "generated by"=20 prohibition, otherwise I think disclosure would be sufficient.
Taking a step back: is Bitcoin's welfare=C2=A0maximized by p= ermitting LLM glurge submissions in standards documents? In some cases it's= benign, I readily agree, in others its harmful.=C2=A0 But the number of go= od submissions that could be made would hardly be increased by LLMs (being = limited by expert proposers with good ideas) but the number of potential po= or submissions is increased astronomically.=C2=A0 So I think it's pretty cl= early a net harm to have text authored that way.

I've never had an impression that drafting was at all a limiting step in w= riting BIPs, though even to the extent that it has been at times it's possi= ble to use LLMs in a review capacity to make authorship much easier ("What'= s missing / unclear?") without resorting to using it to author.

=
There is a particularly clear pattern at least with current LLM tools = that users who lack the skills to have authored the work without an LLM are= generally unable to recognize when the LLM is full of crap (and even somet= imes when they should know better), so unfortunately they're only benign to= use in the hands of those whose need is the least.=C2=A0=C2=A0
<= br />
And as a reviewer outside of Bitcoin I've found LLM powered= proposers to be absolutely the worst to deal with. Because they're not sub= mitting their own words and ideas, they're unable to change their thinking = in response or explain sufficiently to change yours--- the interactions oft= en degrade to them just copy and pasting their chatbot back to you.=C2=A0 B= ecause it's cheap to generate more text they also tend to flood you out wit= h documents several times longer than any human author would have bothered = with.

I think LLMs have generally created someth= ing of an existential threat to most open collaborations: Now its=C2=A0so e= asy to get flooded out by subtly worthless material.=C2=A0 Many projects, i= ncluding, Bitcoin have long struggled with review capacity being limited an= d a far amount of time waste by thoughtless (or even crazy!) submissions, b= ut now it's automated and even the most well meaning person may now make su= bmissions that are as bad as the most deviously constructed malicious submi= ssions could have been in the past, not even know they are doing it, and ca= n make a dozen proposals before lunch without even breaking a sweat.
<= div>


On Wed, = Nov 19, 2025 at 12:06=E2=80=AFAM David A. Harding <da...@dtrt.org> wrote:
On 2025-11-04 15:10, Murch wrote:
> Summary of changes since BIP=E2=80=AF3 was advanced to Proposed:
> [...]
> =C2=A0 - that BIPs submissions may not be generated by AI/LLM=E2=81=B5=
> [...]
> =E2=81=B5 https://github.com/bitco= in/bips/pull/2006

I strongly disagree with this change.=C2=A0 If I were to begin working on a=
new BIP today, I would use AI throughout the process.=C2=A0 I'd ask it to <= br /> help me create a todo list of what should go in the BIP; I'd ask it to
create a draft based on existing BIPs, my todo list, and whatever other work products I had (e.g. prototypes); I'd then ask it to help me refine the document until I was satisfied.

I would, of course, review every word of the draft BIP before submitting it for consideration and ensure that it represented the highest quality work I was able to produce---but the ultimate work would be a mix of AI and human writing and editing.

I think considerate use of AI would be even more valuable for people who are less comfortable with writing technical English-language documents
than I am.=C2=A0 For example, non-native literates, people with disabilitie= s
that make text input difficulty, and those who recognize that they're
bad writers.

The PR forbidding AI doesn't go into any detail about its motivation,
although it references a previous discussion[1] where a low-quality BIP PR was opened using mostly AI-generated content.=C2=A0 I'm guessing the motivation is that AI (by itself) generates low-quality technical
content, BIPs should be high-quality technical content, and therefore we should ban the use of AI.

However, as mentioned in the previous discussion, the BIP process
already requires high-quality content.[2]=C2=A0 AI-generated content can be=
high-quality, especially if its creation and editing was guided by a
knowledgeable human.=C2=A0 Banning specific tools like AI seems redundant a= nd
penalizes people who either need those tools or who can use them
effectively.

I advocate for reverting the first hunk of BIPs repository PR 2006.

-Dave

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pul= l/2005
[2] "After fleshing out the proposal further and ensuring that it is of **high quality** and properly formatted, the authors should open a pull request to the BIPs repository." --BIP3, emphasis added

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+...@googlegroup= s.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bit= coindev/3a66dbbe9a9c46566c8a9a16ccb1cc91%40dtrt.org.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+...@googlegroup= s.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoind= ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoind= ev/624c9e1f-ffb8-4165-83f4-d445f8777476n%40googlegroups.com.
------=_Part_191025_1491143261.1763587260861-- ------=_Part_191024_1115189902.1763587260861--