Hi Steven, It was GPT-5.2 here is the whole conversation that generated that overview: https://chatgpt.com/share/69921d1f-c49c-8009-8df6-43267f8f818b su 15.2.2026 klo 9.21 ip. Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> kirjoitti: > On 2026-02-15 7:05 am, Jori Lehtinen wrote: > > Steffen, > > I will try to properly go trough the legal texts you presented, and try to > demonstrate my solution more from your perspective. > > I pasted our arguments in to AI and asked for a neutral analysis, that I > think is worth reading. > > ----------------------------------- > > Here’s a neutral, text-grounded review *taking Jori’s proposal at face > value*: > > This is an interesting, and to my reading, useful contribution. But based > on reasoning and a link that I have posted to the parallel thread "Concern > about AI-generated contributions in VCWG discussions", I would like to > suggest that it will be useful, both short and long-term, to know: > > a) What specific AI model and version you used, and whether this is an > untouched result, or did you edit it afterwards? > > b) What prompt did you give it? If it was a complex prompt, can you supply > a summary of what occurred -- was it a back-and-forth, or merely a direct > text input? Did you supply files or direct where it should look? Etc. > > There's more in the other thread, but it seems to me, at this unusual > point in time, these threads can't be viewed as separate; we need new norms > for what's happening now, which is overlapping what used to be separate > domains. Because at the moment I no longer know what is 'a person', so > keeping the streams of their discussions separated may not even be > conceptually possible. 🙂 > > Steven Rowat >
Received on Sunday, 15 February 2026 19:24:38 UTC