Re: Proposed draft of an AI policy

IMHO this captures the key aspect of AI 'in the spec' (or implementation?)

On Fri, 29 May 2026 at 23:33, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:

>
> Also, of course, I use whatever coding assistants are embedded in my IDE
> (IntelliJ). There too the technology has clearly been advancing rapidly and
> often delivers very impressive suggestions for code improvement (which I
> never accept without careful manual checking).
>
> Our key mission is to produce high quality specifications, and to achieve
> that, I think the key factor is that we can't accept any proposal to change
> the specs unless it is practically feasible to check it by hand. I'm sure,
> for example, that an LLM could do a pretty good job of of re-arranging the
> XQuery spec in a more logical order, but there's no way we would be able to
> check that it hadn't inadvertently changed anything. Our rationale for
> rejecting such a proposal would be our inability to check it, not the way
> that it was produced.


If offered text or code it is likely that the group would be unable to
determine if AI 'helped' to produced it.
  Far more likely is the inability to check it.

regards


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.