Summary

  • At the ARIN 58 open microphone, Mike Burns asked whether AI-written PPML posts should be detected. John Curran said ARIN requires a human identity behind posts and had not deployed detection for a problem it had not encountered in that form.
  • Kevin Blumberg said he had seen hallucinating agents on PPML. Curran asked for a specific remedy; Lee Howard suggested reviewing list moderation rather than changing the Policy Development Process. No new rule was adopted in the recorded exchange.

The wrong drawer for a noisy mailbox

Burns had put the question to PPML in July: if a person uses AI to polish or compose an argument, should the list judge the argument differently? At the October meeting he sharpened it to an agent posting without a real human identity. Curran's answer was direct. ARIN already requires attribution to a person; anonymous and agentic posts have no standing on that list. Repetition that contributes nothing can also run into the current acceptable-use rules.

That answer did not end the room's dispute. Blumberg said PPML had seen hallucinating agents revive theories discarded in 2013. The transcript does not name the messages or establish their authorship. His testimony establishes the complaint, not a count of bots. Curran asked whether Blumberg wanted new PDP text or an operational tool. Blumberg said he had no answer, only a risk he wanted the community to confront. Curran refused to let the concern become a policy change by implication.

Howard supplied the missing address: PPML moderation. ARIN's PDP gives the Advisory Council the job of weighing arguments on the policy list. A moderator's job is different: decide whether a post may enter or remain in the discussion under published conduct rules. Howard said the room seemed to be asking for a look at that second job, although he could not yet name the amendment. Curran agreed ARIN could work on it and sent the conversation back to PPML.

The distinction matters because an AI detector would decide something different from an Advisory Council. The AC can reject a repeated or weak argument for its substance. A moderation rule can affect who speaks before the argument is weighed. If participants want that power exercised, the next public document must say what conduct triggers action, what evidence counts and how a mistaken removal is challenged.

Sources: ARIN 58 Day Two rough transcript; July PPML exchange; ARIN Policy Development Process.