Motion to Activate BIP 3

The discussion raises concerns about the impact of using Large Language Models (LLMs) for authoring content, specifically within the context of Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs). The core argument revolves around copyright issues associated with AI-generated content and the prohibition against such practices. It emphasizes that while in some instances, the use of LLMs can be benign, overall, they pose a net harm due to the significant increase in potential poor submissions. This is contrasted with the limited increase in valuable contributions, which are primarily driven by experts with innovative ideas.

The email elaborates on the practicality of using LLMs, suggesting that their utility might be more appropriate in a review capacity, where they can aid in identifying missing or unclear aspects without directly authoring the content. This approach could mitigate some of the drafting challenges faced when writing BIPs. However, it also highlights a critical issue with current LLM tools: users lacking the skills to author original work without an LLM tend to be unable to recognize when the generated content is flawed. This limitation is particularly problematic because it suggests that LLMs are most benign when used by those who need them the least.

Further, the correspondence points out the difficulties encountered when dealing with LLM-powered proposals outside of the Bitcoin community. Such proposals tend to be challenging to engage with due to the proposers' reliance on AI-generated text, making it hard for them to adapt their thinking or adequately explain their ideas. This often results in interactions devolving into mere exchanges of chatbot outputs. Additionally, the ease and low cost of generating content with LLMs lead to an overwhelming volume of submissions, far surpassing what human authors would typically produce.

The email concludes by addressing the broader implications of LLM usage on open collaboration projects. It notes how the simplicity of generating vast amounts of content has created an existential threat by flooding these projects with material that is subtly worthless. This not only exacerbates existing challenges related to review capacities and the handling of thoughtless or malicious submissions but also introduces a new dynamic where well-meaning individuals can unknowingly contribute to the problem at an unprecedented scale.