Suppose you wanted to publish some LLM generated text on your website.

[kiloku@burnthis.town]

@Edent I'd say using the lang attribute for that is the wrong move, as it has existing uses related to screen-readers. Different languages have different pronunciations for syllables/words that are written the same, and the screen-readers take that into account.
I imagine it might also mess up in-line automated translation tools
Also itemId is supposed to always be a URL

Guidance for custom attributes is to use data-*, so I'd say like <p data-author="ChatGPT"> is best
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/Global_attributes/data-*/

[jnv@mastodon.social]

@Edent I'd use `<blockquote>` with `<cite>` element or `<q>` for inline citation. For machine readable metadata I'd probably use `Quotation` type from Schema.org with `spokenByCharacter`, although I don't like classifying an LLM output as a creative work

[lmpnsl@openbiblio.social]

@Edent

A dedicated <meta> tag or a custom attribute could be used to prevent repurposing existing HTML semantics like lang or output. This avoids ambiguity (e.g., lang="ai" isn’t valid) and doesn’t misrepresent the AI as an "author" (since it’s a tool, not a creator with intent).

[yoasif@mastodon.social]

@Edent I wouldn't have thought to add metadata to identify it separately from my own work.

[blogdiva@mastodon.social]

i chose other because:

1. please, do NOT set “ai” as a language. it isn’t.

2. stochastic parrots are taking someone’s work and regurgitating it as their own, so there are two possibilities:

provenance
https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/#provenance

or

source
https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/#source

3. BUT! the problem with the stochastic parrots is that they are copying without attribution. so, from the two choices we have, i think "provenance" is the more accurate one.

4. AI ≠ human ∴ ≠ author

@EzellaGarnie @Edent

[edavies@functional.cafe]

@Edent No opinions other than a strong one that it should not be the “lang="ai"” version. “ai” isn't an appropriate ISO 639 language code which is what a lang attribute with this syntax should be.

[blogdiva@mastodon.social]

BTW given the numerous reports of the proprietary LLMs changing answers, i would add a DATE property and timestamp it down to the minute.

@EzellaGarnie @Edent

[blogdiva@mastodon.social]

the LLM isnt a language. it’s taking in info from elsewhere and giving it to you. in that sense, it’s a provenance if the LLM isn’t giving the source of their answer.

and FWIW: in USA only humans are recognized as authors. you do NOT want to take the techbros bait of claiming their proprietary software is the real author of your work.

imagine Microsoft claiming copyright over your labor because you used MSOffice or Github?

that’s why metadata is so important.

@lmpnsl @Edent

[neilk@xoxo.zone]

@Edent

lang attribute is for human languages. ai is not a language. Also it just looks like the common mistake of putting a country code there (Anguilla)

output is for interactive elements like a calculator.

schema + itemprop: maybe! but I don’t see a clear standard yet. IPTC has metadata for gen AI images, not text

If entire doc is gen AI: JSON-LD for entire doc can indicate author, and even entity type = Person, so in theory something else can go there?

Why do you feel you need this?

[neilk@xoxo.zone]

@Edent To clarify my question: we don’t generally use HTML to indicate authorship of a textual element on the page, whether human or machine. There are whole document standards. What purpose does it serve to call this out?

If you are quoting the LLM, there is a microformat for Quotation. Unfortunately the only valid authors are of type “Person” or “Organization”. I guess you could hack it and put another value there, no one will send you to jail

[benjamineskola@hachyderm.io]

@Edent I think the language attribute can’t be right: it’s not a language. And LLM output could be in any language, so that would prevent the ability to correctly indicate the actual language.

I would also disagree with the schema option (3); an LLM is not an author but a tool used by some other author.

Out of these three then I’d choose option 2, output element; but I don’t have a strong opinion in its favour or whether there’s a better alternative, more just a process of elimination.

[lnsy_dev@mastodon.social]

@Edent I thought of a custom html tag that would prevent copying (lol) like: <ai-generated model="model name" date="date here" prompt="prompt to generate text">text here</ai-generated>

We could implement this now in validating html using the custom HTML elements api

[khleedril@cyberplace.social]

@Edent CSS:

#ai, .ai { background-color: black; color: black; }

[kleisli@mastodon.social]

@Edent I don't think the organisation behind a model (OpenAI) or the model family (chatgpt) should be named, it should just be more generic: "llm", "ai" or "generated".

[se_davidobrien@mastodon.scot]

<meta name="AI" content="true"> <!-- Or false -->

You could add partial or complete attributes to the spec.

@Edent

[ramsey@phpc.social]

@Edent “ai” isn’t a valid locale, so I wouldn’t use it for a language attribute.

<output> seems to have specific semantics that don’t fit.

I voted for the Schema option.

[bartknubben@mastodon.nl]

@Edent Maybe <meta name="author" content="AI"> when all content of a web page is AI generated…

[fazalmajid@social.vivaldi.net]

@Edent I would blockquote it, and have a special class for it with visibly different formatting, perhaps a monospace font as well to emphasize the robot-ness of it.

[mjack@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@Edent

Comic Sans has entered the chat