Re: The Slopification of the CCG

I think another important point is that we will have to evolve the entire
process of standardization, especially for web standards. Over the years,
with the growth of IoT, robotics, communication, and compute, the way
systems operate has fundamentally changed, but our standards still follow
older, more static thinking. This is not just about what we include or
exclude; the problem is deeper, the methodology itself needs to change, I
feel the core question has already shifted. Instead of debating what should
be allowed or not, we should focus on setting clear constraints on how
systems behave and operate. Systems that have memory, generative ability,
and goal-driven reasoning already function with a kind of built-in autonomy
within their limits, so arguing about giving them agency does not really
make sense. What matters is being realistic about it and designing
processes that can handle this behavior reliably, rather than turning it
into a debate.
Regards
Amir Hameed Mir


On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 at 06:42, Steve Capell <steve.capell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Challenge : there’s an increasing amount of AI generated content that,
> whilst possibly containing useful insights, takes more time to read than to
> generate and, given the size of this mailing list, is likely to lead most
> of us to unsubscribe, rendering the list worthless
>
> Constraint : AI used well is a genuinely useful tool and can dramatically
> improve quality of output.  “Used well” is key and, unfortunately, many do
> not use it so well.  Nevertheless, this group can’t become anti-LLM
> luddites or this list may equally become worthless for the opposite reason
>
> Goal : to continue to enjoy intelligent discussions between real humans
> that feel empowered to use AI to improve the value of their human
> contributions.  So the goal, it seems to me is not to block AI content but
> rather to block content that has little evidence of human analysis and
> interpretation.  Perhaps counterintuitively, LLMs themselves might be the
> best tool to detect such content
>
> Proposal : rather than continuing to discuss whether AI content on this
> list is good or bad, let’s collectively agree a rubric in the form of an AI
> prompt that can act as an automated list moderator.  The rubric should
> focus on requiring evidence of human assessment rather than blocking AI
> content
>
> I had a go at this myself with several of the messages in this thread and
> earlier ones and it seemed quite effective at blocking the ones that I
> would have blocked myself.  I know that there is a token cost associated
> with such a moderator but I for one would delighted to contribute.
>
> Disclaimer : this message was written with blurry eyes and fat thumbs on
> my iPhone - with no AI assistance whatsoever
>
> Kind regards
>
> Steven Capell
> UN/CEFACT Vice-Chair
> Mob: +61 410 437854
>
> On 19 Apr 2026, at 10:03 am, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> ne 19. 4. 2026 v 1:49 odesílatel Marcus Engvall <marcus@engvall.email>
> napsal:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I’m glad to see that we have some healthy discourse in this thread with a
>> variety of views. I would like to address some of the points made.
>>
>> On 18 Apr 2026, at 01:50, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> LLMs have the advantage that they know most or all of the specs
>> inside-out, due to their training. Most humans (with notable exceptions),
>> including on this list, have partial understanding of the complete works of
>> web standards.
>>
>>
>> This is a real advantage that these tools have and it should not be
>> understated. I use them professionally for referential lookups and for
>> confirming hypotheses, and I have no doubt that they have the ability to
>> accelerate otherwise excellent standards work. But I am also careful to not
>> fall into the trap of assuming that their lexical consistency can fully
>> substitute  for human judgement. LLMs are probabilistic models with
>> encyclopaedic knowledge, they are not deterministic oracles with the
>> capacity to rigorously derive that same knowledge. In the context of the
>> kind of work done in this group I think it is important to not confuse the
>> two. I trust an LLM to give me a comprehensive overview of a standards
>> framework - I do not, however, trust it to prescribe the framework itself
>> without and human review and editorial judgement.
>>
>> I do however concede on your point on testing methodology, and I think
>> you raise a good point that Manu eloquently touched on.
>>
>
> Good points. However LLMs outperform humans on medical exams,
> olympiad questions and many other tests, often by wide margins. They are
> much more than prediction machines or probabilistic guessers. What I'm
> saying is that I predict LLMs would exceed humans in the standards setting
> on any quantitative evaluation. We just have not the tools to evaluate yet.
> However, I believe the picture will be much clearer one year from now.
>
>
>>
>> On 18 Apr 2026, at 02:24, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>>
>> Technology transitions, especially ones around human communication can
>> be rough to navigate. This one is no different, and sometimes it takes
>> decades to figure out the norms around a new medium (the printed page,
>> radio, television, BBSes, mailing lists, AOL, ICQ, Napster, Twitter,
>> Digg/Reddit/Discord, and so on).
>>
>>
>> You are completely right that this is a transition, and I think we are
>> all trying to map this new technology onto our existing mental models of
>> what discourse should and could be. Friction and contention is bound to
>> arise. It is clearly counterproductive, as you and later Amir rightly
>> stated, to enforce neo-Luddism and reject the technology wholesale.
>>
>> My point however is that the ability to passively follow and occasionally
>> contribute to developments and discussions in this group is immensely
>> valuable, both commercially and technically. Compressing the
>> signal-to-noise ratio raises the bar for both comprehension and
>> participation, and my fear is that the inevitable intractability will, as
>> you pointed out in the other thread, overwhelm people and alienate them,
>> especially those of us with many other commitments and who do not have the
>> time or ability to participate in every group call. That said, it is, as
>> you suggested, our responsibility to moderate our own information
>> ingestion, as has been the case for time immemorial in any rhetorical forum.
>>
>> Perhaps LLMs will simply change the structure of how discourse is
>> conducted in forums like these rather than drown it out, as some other
>> writers have suggested in the thread. If the cost to contribute text tends
>> to zero, naturally the valuable discussions will shift elsewhere to forums
>> that still have a cost, such as the group calls. I just hope the work
>> doesn’t lose the diversity of opinions that is crucial to develop a refined
>> and well-considered standard.
>>
>> --
>> Marcus Engvall
>>
>> Principal—M. Engvall & Co.
>> mengvall.com
>>
>>