Motion to Activate BIP 3

The recent amendment to the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) guidelines, specifically regarding the use of AI and Large Language Models (LLMs), has sparked a debate within the community. The addition, made on October 22, introduces strict rules that prohibit the generation of content by AI/LLMs and mandates authors to disclose any AI assistance upfront. This directive has raised concerns due to its ambiguity and the practical implications it may entail for authors. Questions have been raised about the extent of disclosure required, particularly in scenarios where AI is used in peripheral tasks unrelated to the BIP's content, such as summarizing emails or making decisions not directly influencing the BIP.

One contentious point is the mandate that a BIP must be the "original work of its authors," which complicates submissions that are inspired by or directly propose ideas from external sources like blog posts or research papers. This requirement could potentially limit the scope of contributions and innovation within the Bitcoin development community. The rule's phrasing leaves room for interpretation, leading to uncertainties about whether proposals based on external ideas would be considered non-compliant under the new guidelines.

In response to these concerns, there’s a suggestion to revert the recently added AI-related rules to avoid delaying the activation of the broader BIP reform efforts. It’s proposed that adjustments to the AI policy could be considered after the main BIP reform is activated, allowing for a more focused discussion on how AI tools should be integrated into the BIP creation process. This approach aims to prevent the controversy over AI from hindering progress on other important updates within the BIP framework.

Furthermore, there is an acknowledgment of the potential for low-quality BIPs generated by LLMs, indicating that the intent behind the new rules might be to maintain a high standard of proposal quality. However, the debate highlights a need for clearer guidelines and perhaps a separate BIP dedicated to outlining the role and limitations of AI in the BIP creation process. This would allow for a more nuanced and effective regulation of AI tools, balancing the benefits of technological assistance with the integrity and originality of BIP content.