Re: LLMs and Agents usage in the CCG

These collective comments are leaning in the wrong direction IMO. As a technically advanced/bright set of minds, I would like to see the W3C *leaning in* towards researching how we can use AI *more* and *more*

Here's an example of where in industry is headed: Parchment Programming
https://hyperonomy.com/2026/04/09/parchment-programming-diagramic-design-document-intermediate-representation-part-1/


We should be digging deeply into how W3C specifications and other artifacts can be easily discovered, consumed, and used by AI to create complete, complex, and correct technology and governance solutions (literally overnight) ...not leaning away.

Michael Herman
Chief Digital Officer
Web 7.0 Foundation


Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: Amir Hameed <amsaalegal@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 11:23:30 PM
To: Taylor Kendal <taylor@learningeconomy.io>
Cc: dzagidulin@gmail.com <dzagidulin@gmail.com>; Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@gmail.com>; Mahmoud Alkhraishi <mahmoud@mavennet.com>; Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: LLMs and Agents usage in the CCG


Hi all,

I think it’s more useful to clearly define boundaries. LLMs can help in how something is written, but they should not influence what is being decided. Areas like security, cryptography, privacy, interoperability, core architecture, and working group decisions should remain strictly human-driven, because these require intent, accountability, and real understanding.

At the same time, LLMs can be useful in a limited way—mainly for improving language, fixing grammar, helping non-native English speakers express themselves better, and structuring drafts. They can also help with examples or explanations, but not with anything normative. As a general principle, any information should be verified before being shared further, especially when LLMs are involved. In all cases, there must be a human author who has properly reviewed the content, understands it, and takes full responsibility for it.

On the mailing list, keeping it human-only makes sense to avoid noise and maintain meaningful discussion. I would lean toward Option 3, with one addition: light disclosure of LLM assistance (for example, noting if it was used for structuring or language), so the group can apply appropriate scrutiny. LLMs and agents are tools we’ve built over time, and it’s important we continue to use them in line with their intended role—as assistants, not decision-makers—while keeping accountability firmly human.


Regards
Amir Hameed Mir

On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 1:04 AM, Taylor Kendal <taylor@learningeconomy.io<mailto:taylor@learningeconomy.io>> wrote:
Great thread, and I appreciate Mahmoud and the chairs for facilitating this proactively. I want to build on what Daniel and Dmitri are raising as I think there are a few important points underneath the surface-level policy question.

The real issue isn't whether agents participate, but whether we can maintain accountability, provenance, and trust when they do. And that's a problem this community is arguably more qualified to address than almost any other group. The CCG has spent over a decade building the conceptual and technical foundations for exactly this kind of challenge (verifiable claims, delegation, HiTL trust chains). The question of "who said this, on whose authority, and can I verify it?" is what this group does/has always done.

Dmitri's point about infra resonates. The gap between what we know needs to exist and what actually exists today is very real. It's not a theoretical gap, but one of resources and institutional commitment. Like many here, we work in this space every day: building open, standards-aligned credential infrastructure that can make things like verifiable delegation, accountable AI participation, and human-anchored trust practically possible, not just conceptually sound. We'd welcome the opportunity to inform or support the CCG in standing up that kind of infra if there's appetite for it.

One other non-trivial dimension to flag: the CCG's archive (a decade+ of meeting transcripts, mailing list threads, spec work, etc.) represents an extraordinary knowledge base. If/when responsible AI tooling is applied to standards work, the quality and integrity of that contextual foundation matters A LOT. A well-structured, verifiable archive paired with responsible AI could meaningfully lower barriers to participation and institutional memory. Done poorly or without the trust scaffolding this group knows how to build, it just produces over-confident noise. Imho, that distinction is exactly why the CCG should lead this conversation, not just react to it.

On the immediate policy question: Option 2 seems like the most pragmatic starting point, with the addition of Melvin's point about branch protection and review processes. Disclosure + human accountability ftw. Seems a good opportunity to dog-food our own work and use the credential and delegation models we've been developing to lead and solve this problem for ourselves first.

On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 11:10 AM Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com<mailto:dzagidulin@gmail.com>> wrote:
>  and how the CCG ought to lead out in requiring credentials of its human and AI members.

Daniel,
I think about this part every day. And my suspicion is -- the inability of our CCG to do that rests in a lack of infrastructure resources.
(We'll put aside the other major obstacle, which is - folks are very rightly concerned that there will be a big fight about the exact credential serializations and protocols.)

As it is, key community group infrastructure (like meeting auto-scribe models) has been maintained by single companies or even single individual volunteers, at their own expense.

And something like the ability to have human and AI membership credentials -- and I agree that it's CRUCIAL for any kind of standards groups -- will require some basic infrastructure. Not a lot (some server space, a domain or two). And even more importantly, institutional buy-in to stand behind it. "Yes, this is the list of anchoring identity registries we're keeping an eye on, etc"

I don't know what can be done about that.

Part of me is tempted to informally pass around the hat, among CG membership, a minimal voluntary membership donation, to set up this infrastructure.
Another part knows that this is really in the realm of the standards body itself, that W3C should provide it for all their CGs. And I don't have enough institutional process knowledge of how to make this happen.

But just wanted to flag that your statement really resonated with me.