Hi Oghenovo Usiwoma and Bitcoin Mechanic,

You wrote:

In my humble opinion, I believe that humans will continue to use the easiest method available to them to achieve their goals. If we agree that humans will do this, then there will be a lot of AI-assisted content. If I did write an AI-assisted BIP draft, why would I add this "AI-label" to my BIP when I know that it will cause reviewers to ignore it?

As a disabled person who uses AI tools, my view is that AI will soon be part of most serious workflows, much like reading the manuals and prior discussions is today. Used well, it can summarise long threads, prioritise issues, deduplicate proposals, and help check code for obvious bugs. Refusing to use any such tools can be a step backward in productivity.

The key is how we use them. I would support:

• Clear disclosure of AI assistance as a process note, not a stigma.

• Strong norms that final authorship, technical accuracy, and accountability rest with the human proposer.

• Encouraging A.I. for review support, not for replacing understanding.

This balances transparency with practical benefits and keeps the bar on rigour where it belongs.

Best,
Wrapper

https://www.zerogpt.com/   0% A.I.