Suppose you wanted to publish some LLM generated text on your website.
-
Suppose you wanted to publish some LLM generated text on your website. (Perhaps to critique it, or praise it, whatever.)
What metadata would you use to indicate that it was AI generated?
Which of these examples is closest to your ideal?
(No need to reply telling me your insights on AI, thanks. I'm just interested in how you think it should be rendered in HTML.)
@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
-
Suppose you wanted to publish some LLM generated text on your website. (Perhaps to critique it, or praise it, whatever.)
What metadata would you use to indicate that it was AI generated?
Which of these examples is closest to your ideal?
(No need to reply telling me your insights on AI, thanks. I'm just interested in how you think it should be rendered in HTML.)
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).
-
Suppose you wanted to publish some LLM generated text on your website. (Perhaps to critique it, or praise it, whatever.)
What metadata would you use to indicate that it was AI generated?
Which of these examples is closest to your ideal?
(No need to reply telling me your insights on AI, thanks. I'm just interested in how you think it should be rendered in HTML.)
@Edent I wouldn't have thought to add metadata to identify it separately from my own work.
-
@Edent
I voted for the Schema Option, but i would use Dublin Core, especially the Creator Element https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/terms/creator/ , as Metadata Schema.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/#provenanceor
source
https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/#source3. 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
-
Suppose you wanted to publish some LLM generated text on your website. (Perhaps to critique it, or praise it, whatever.)
What metadata would you use to indicate that it was AI generated?
Which of these examples is closest to your ideal?
(No need to reply telling me your insights on AI, thanks. I'm just interested in how you think it should be rendered in HTML.)
@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.
-
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/#provenanceor
source
https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/#source3. 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
BTW given the numerous reports of the proprietary LLMs changing answers, i would add a DATE property and timestamp it down to the minute.
-
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).
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.
-
Suppose you wanted to publish some LLM generated text on your website. (Perhaps to critique it, or praise it, whatever.)
What metadata would you use to indicate that it was AI generated?
Which of these examples is closest to your ideal?
(No need to reply telling me your insights on AI, thanks. I'm just interested in how you think it should be rendered in HTML.)
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?
-
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?
@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
-
Suppose you wanted to publish some LLM generated text on your website. (Perhaps to critique it, or praise it, whatever.)
What metadata would you use to indicate that it was AI generated?
Which of these examples is closest to your ideal?
(No need to reply telling me your insights on AI, thanks. I'm just interested in how you think it should be rendered in HTML.)
@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.
-
Suppose you wanted to publish some LLM generated text on your website. (Perhaps to critique it, or praise it, whatever.)
What metadata would you use to indicate that it was AI generated?
Which of these examples is closest to your ideal?
(No need to reply telling me your insights on AI, thanks. I'm just interested in how you think it should be rendered in HTML.)
@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
-
Suppose you wanted to publish some LLM generated text on your website. (Perhaps to critique it, or praise it, whatever.)
What metadata would you use to indicate that it was AI generated?
Which of these examples is closest to your ideal?
(No need to reply telling me your insights on AI, thanks. I'm just interested in how you think it should be rendered in HTML.)
-
Suppose you wanted to publish some LLM generated text on your website. (Perhaps to critique it, or praise it, whatever.)
What metadata would you use to indicate that it was AI generated?
Which of these examples is closest to your ideal?
(No need to reply telling me your insights on AI, thanks. I'm just interested in how you think it should be rendered in HTML.)
@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".
-
Suppose you wanted to publish some LLM generated text on your website. (Perhaps to critique it, or praise it, whatever.)
What metadata would you use to indicate that it was AI generated?
Which of these examples is closest to your ideal?
(No need to reply telling me your insights on AI, thanks. I'm just interested in how you think it should be rendered in HTML.)
<meta name="AI" content="true"> <!-- Or false -->
You could add partial or complete attributes to the spec.
-
Suppose you wanted to publish some LLM generated text on your website. (Perhaps to critique it, or praise it, whatever.)
What metadata would you use to indicate that it was AI generated?
Which of these examples is closest to your ideal?
(No need to reply telling me your insights on AI, thanks. I'm just interested in how you think it should be rendered in HTML.)
@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.
-
Suppose you wanted to publish some LLM generated text on your website. (Perhaps to critique it, or praise it, whatever.)
What metadata would you use to indicate that it was AI generated?
Which of these examples is closest to your ideal?
(No need to reply telling me your insights on AI, thanks. I'm just interested in how you think it should be rendered in HTML.)
@Edent Maybe <meta name="author" content="AI"> when all content of a web page is AI generated…
-
Suppose you wanted to publish some LLM generated text on your website. (Perhaps to critique it, or praise it, whatever.)
What metadata would you use to indicate that it was AI generated?
Which of these examples is closest to your ideal?
(No need to reply telling me your insights on AI, thanks. I'm just interested in how you think it should be rendered in HTML.)
@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.
-
Suppose you wanted to publish some LLM generated text on your website. (Perhaps to critique it, or praise it, whatever.)
What metadata would you use to indicate that it was AI generated?
Which of these examples is closest to your ideal?
(No need to reply telling me your insights on AI, thanks. I'm just interested in how you think it should be rendered in HTML.)
Comic Sans has entered the chat
