Motion to Activate BIP 3

In the dialogue concerning the necessity of disclosing the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) or any future assisting technology in the creation of Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs), a nuanced perspective emerges. The argument unfolds around the premise that the intrinsic value of a BIP does not hinge on whether an LLM was employed in its drafting but rather on the quality and compliance of the proposal itself. It is suggested that the focus should be on the preliminary efforts made by the proposer, such as engaging in discussions within relevant forums, soliciting feedback, and refining the proposal based on this input. These steps are presented as essential in ensuring the proposal's review and consideration, irrespective of the technological aids utilized.

The discussion also touches upon the notion that the effectiveness and acceptance of a BIP are independent of the author's intentions or the means of its creation. Whether the proposer is a "good actor" with intentions aligned with community standards or a "bad actor" looking to bypass these norms, the outcome—acceptance or rejection of the BIP—is dictated by the proposal's inherent merit and alignment with community expectations. This viewpoint underscores the irrelevance of the tool used in crafting the proposal, asserting that the content's quality is paramount.

Furthermore, the conversation advocates for the removal of the requirement to disclose LLM usage in the submission process. Instead, a broader warning against "low-effort contributions" is proposed, emphasizing the importance of substance over the method of creation. This stance is aimed at fostering transparency while acknowledging that the primary concern should be the value and contribution of the proposal to the Bitcoin development ecosystem, not the specific tools used in its development.