Comic Sans has entered the chat

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

I voted for the Schema option.

You could add partial or complete attributes to the spec.

@Edent

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

@EzellaGarnie @Edent

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

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).

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-*/

Even this feels incomplete tho - as 'English not first language, used LLM to grammar-check' is v different from 'I didn't write this'. There's also a taxonomy somewhere to help make this clear (forget where). E.g.
- LLM written (entirely)
- LLM translated
- LLM assisted (contains LLM phrases / ideas).
- LLM edited/proof-read/spell/grammar checked.

Distinguishing might make it easier to separate the kind of LLM-use Cory Doctorow says he does after writing, vs full slop-scribing.