# Updates to the site guidelines, especially regarding gen-AI
**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315
**Category:** Meta Discussion
**Created:** [December 2, 2025, 10:58pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315 "2025-12-02T22:58:56Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@mbauman](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/mbauman)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2025, 10:58pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/1 "2025-12-02T22:58:56Z")
I’ve just updated the site [~~FAQ~~ Guidelines](https://discourse.julialang.org/faq). In addition to more consistently using the language of Guidelines for the page itself, there are two major changes:
1. The first section is re-ordered to more fully anchor to the Julia community standards. Unlike the rest of the guidelines, those **are** (and have always been) the hard and fast rules of our community. The section now reads:
2. An additional bullet point was added to the “Keep It Tidy” section that provides the explicit guidance:
This is something I’ve talked with folks about doing for a few weeks now. The goal here is to make the guidelines a bit more clear. Remember, unlike the standards, these are _just_ guidelines, and flagged posts are more of an organizational tool and directed feedback than a reprimand.
---
### Author:  [@Mason](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Mason)
#### Post date: [February 2, 2026, 3:04pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/2 "2026-02-02T15:04:55Z")
Could I suggest adding a small note in the guideline detailing _why_ there’s this guideline regarding gen-AI?
I think one who is enthusiastic about modern chatbots might read that guideline and think “ah whoever wrote that is some Luddite who hates the future!”
This post itself provides a somewhat concise reasoning for the rule. So perhaps a small sentance or a link to a footnote saying something like (edited from your post Matt)
> This rule is really a subset of two older, more general guidelines: (1) The community standards has _long_ urged all participants to [be concise](https://julialang.org/community/standards/#be_concise). Generative AI is typically the exact _opposite_ of concise. (2) The guidelines here have always asked folks — people! — to [improve the conversation](https://discourse.julialang.org/faq#improve) by _adding_ to the conversation and _thinking about it_.
---
### Author:  [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 2:37pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/3 "2026-09-10T14:37:40Z")
Coming here from the recent discussion [I don’t want to read LLM output - #141 by mbauman](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/i-don-t-want-to-read-llm-output/139244/141) it still strikes me as a strange “preference” for an open minded community that fosters participation to **impose _stricter_ rules on written contributions than major scientific publishers do** these days of fast co-evolution with GenAI?
Using AI responsibly in scientific publishing. _Nat Methods_ **23** , 271 (2026). [Using AI responsibly in scientific publishing | Nature Methods](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-026-03020-1)
> At _Nature Methods_, part of the broader Nature Portfolio, we realize that we can’t hold back the oncoming tide that is generative AI, but we can set some guidelines for its use in the publishing process. The key to responsible use, in our view, is transparency.
> Nature Portfolio’s [policies](https://www.nature.com/nmeth/editorial-policies/ai) do allow authors to use generative AI tools to help write sections of their manuscript or edit their manuscripts for readability, but they must declare this use in the Methods section. We advise our authors to not take AI-generated text at face value, but carefully check and edit such text for accuracy. Note that a generative AI tool cannot be listed as an author, as, being non-human, it cannot take accountability for the content of a manuscript.
_Elsevier_ has a [similar policy](https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/generative-ai-policies-for-journals?utm_source=chatgpt.com) allowing for carefully reviewed and disclosed use of GenAI.
Essentially, both publishers acknowledge the positive influence GenAI can have and weigh the pros and cons to come up with what I find a pragmatic rule to allow for **resonsible and disclosed** use of GenAI in preparing communication.
---
### Author:  [@mihalybaci](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/mihalybaci)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 3:43pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/4 "2026-09-10T15:43:47Z")
(The other thread you mention is still best for describing the rationale behind the guidelines and discussing the merits of generative AI posts, so I will try to stay focused.)
From Elsevier’s page
> Editing and adapting all material thoroughly to ensure the manuscript represents the author’s authentic and original contribution and reflects their own analysis, interpretation, insights and ideas.
From Julia Discourse
> Don’t post generative AI outputs (but _direct human language translation_ and minor editing is ok).
In both cases use of LLMs is allowed, but just dumping the output of an chatbot is not. It is doesn’t seem to me that the policy here is that much more strict.
Also, I do not think it is possible to cite two journals and assume they represent all “major scientific publishers” either. For example, the esteemed Science magazine would seem to have a [slightly stricter policy](https://www.science.org/content/page/science-journals-editorial-policies#image-text) than either of the ones you mentioned. The magazine goes so as far as to say that
> “Editors may decline to move forward with manuscripts if AI is used inappropriately.”
Again, this is very in-line with the established policy for this forum where posts may be removed at the discretion of the moderators if they are flagged by users as not following the guidelines.
Lastly, I do not think that the standards of science journals can or should be applied here. The two communication styles serve difference purposes. The point of a journal article is to tell the world about some area of research in enough detail that others can understand it, judge it, and build off of it. The entire point of a forum like this one is to discuss a specific topic with other humans in a direct back and forth. Because the way the communications happens is so different, different rules are needed to apply to each.
EDIT: The well-regarded JAMA medical journal has an [AI policy](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2852772) that allows for AI/LLM use in its article, but is **prohibited** in the peer review process where they expect humans to respond to each other directly, like in this forum.
---
### Author:  [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 4:05pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/5 "2026-09-10T16:05:58Z")
> [@mihalybaci](#):
>
> It is doesn’t seem to me that the policy here is that much more strict.
Yes it is and disclosed use of AI for refining once thoughts get’s your text blocked (ample evidence from the thread).
> [@mihalybaci](#):
>
> Also, I do not think it is possible to cite two journals and assume they represent all “major scientific publishers” either.
The quantifier “all” was never used by me.
> [@mihalybaci](#):
>
> For example, the esteemed Science magazine would seem to have a [slightly stricter policy](https://www.science.org/content/page/science-journals-editorial-policies#image-text) than either of the ones you mentioned.
That’s not true. I just visited the [Science journal’s guidelines for AI usage](https://www.science.org/cms/asset/cea1081d-3aa4-42a2-96b7-72290067116a/sept26_science_journals_guidelines_ai_use.pdf) and they pretty much match those for Nature and Elsevier given as examples.
> [@mihalybaci](#):
>
> Lastly, I do not think that the standards of science journals can or should be applied here. The two communication styles serve difference purposes. The point of a journal article is to tell the world about some area of research in enough detail that others can understand it, judge it, and build off of it. The entire point of a forum like this one is to discuss a specific topic with other humans in a direct back and forth. Because the way the communications happens is so different, different rules are needed to apply to each.
That’s some leap there beyond scientific evidence against it. It is quite unclear whether AI-use even for direct communication is not benefitial, see the literature I cited [here](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/i-don-t-want-to-read-llm-output/139244/138). Furthermore, the OP started the thread addressing announcements for packages and that to me is closer to scientific papers (e.g., announcing new findings) than to human interaction?
Did I miss something else?
---
### Author:  [@mihalybaci](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/mihalybaci)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 4:58pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/6 "2026-09-10T16:58:21Z")
> [@gwr](#):
>
> The quantifier “all” was never used by me.
While “all” was never explicitly said, it was definitely implied that the two sources cited are the majority view.
> [@gwr](#):
>
> Yes it is and disclosed use of AI for refining once thoughts get’s your text blocked (ample evidence from the thread).
> [@gwr](#):
>
> That’s not true. I just visited the [Science journal’s guidelines for AI usage](https://www.science.org/cms/asset/cea1081d-3aa4-42a2-96b7-72290067116a/sept26_science_journals_guidelines_ai_use.pdf) and they pretty much match those for Nature and Elsevier given as examples.
As I said, Science magazine also reserves the right to deny manuscripts for reasons owning to AI/LLM usage, again similar to the moderators discretion.
> [@gwr](#):
>
> Furthermore, the OP started the thread addressing announcements for packages and that to me is closer to scientific papers
I would say that the Announcements category is more akin to a press release. When big findings are announced, a carefully crafted **short** , **non-technical** blurb is put out, which then points to other sources for the technical information. In this analogy, the docs and/or github readme is the scientific paper: full of details and implementation specifics.
---
### Author:  [@goerz](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/goerz)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 7:03pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/7 "2026-09-10T19:03:19Z")
> [@gwr](#):
>
> > [@mihalybaci](#):
> >
> > It is doesn’t seem to me that the policy here is that much more strict.
>
> Yes it is and disclosed use of AI for refining once thoughts get’s your text blocked (ample evidence from the thread).
What are you talking about? Of course you can refine your thoughts using AI! What gets blocked are posts of _unfiltered_ LLM output, attribution or not.
I’m quite sure that the policy here is pretty similar in spirit to that of those publishers. If anything, _less strict_: we don’t have an attribution policy at this time. And I would say, “attribution” probably works against you: if you’ve refined your thoughts sufficiently using an AI, no attribution should be necessary. _You_ are standing behind these thoughts, even if parts of the text may still have been generated by an LLM (to an unrecognizable level). If you need attribution, you’re pretty much doing it wrong.
I understand why in some context, LLM attribution can be useful. But informal communication between users in a forum really isn’t one of them.
---
### Author:  [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 7:24pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/8 "2026-09-10T19:24:00Z")
> [@goerz](#):
>
> What are you talking about? Of course you can refine your thoughts using AI! What gets blocked are posts of _unfiltered_ LLM output, attribution or not.
So I write some text/thoughts `T` and have that be refined by the AI to `A(T)` and then I correct the AI and sharpen this by prompting `gwr(A(T))` and then the AI returns `A(gwr(A(T))`, which I use to produce a revised text `gwr(A(gwr(A(T)))`. Some iterations later we have something that is a say _polished_ thought. Is that “vibe texting”? In my opinion: no.
What’s happening here is that an unreliable process (see the cited literature on how reliable AI detection is) is used to label text. Absurdly then, bad grammar, repetition, incorrect use of words, typical human sloppiness, in short _human fallibility_ is taken as a _quality indicator_, i.e., this is written by a human being (who is honest and worthy to be a member).
I completely doubt that you can clearly say what is unfiltered or not. If you could, you should write a paper and submit it to the journals, that published those papers I cited.
EDIT: And if you think about it, you might notice that indeed disclosure of use is punished, while simply being silent is not. BTW I claimed that [my posted entry](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/i-don-t-want-to-read-llm-output/139244/101) was written “using AI”, but I never said, what _kind_ of use that was. Can you prove that I did not simply use AI for translation and minor edits? Or is the _burden of proof_ now on me, which is making this impossible: How to prove the absence of use or the minority of editorial scope?
---
### Author:  [@goerz](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/goerz)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 7:39pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/9 "2026-09-10T19:39:02Z")
You are way overthinking this. This isn’t about “can we detect whatever nested function of human and LLM output something is”. If you look at a post and can easily tell “this was copy-pasted straight out of Claude”, you flag it, and then a moderator blocks it. This really isn’t complicated. Don’t worry about these hypothetical edge cases so much.
---
### Author:  [@mbauman](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/mbauman)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 7:41pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/10 "2026-09-10T19:41:01Z")
Are you reading what I’m saying? From December:
> [@mbauman](#):
>
> if your usage of the generative tool passes the Turing test and **adds to the conversation** in a **relevant** and **concise** way, that’s just fine! Minor editing and human language translation are good examples of such usages and that’s why they’re explicitly okayed.
There’s no automated tooling “detecting AI” here. We aren’t using Pangram or GPTZero or whatever. But, yeah, if you post in big bold letters **THIS WAS WRITTEN USING AI** then what are moderators to do?
---
### Author:  [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 7:58pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/11 "2026-09-10T19:58:42Z")
> [@mbauman](#):
>
> **THIS WAS WRITTEN USING AI**
Actually, that’s another form of test. 😉
1. You explicitly stated that “use of AI” is not prohibited per se, it depends on the kind of use and the quality of the contribution (e.g., is it valuable for what is being discussed and does it clearly express what _the human_ wants to convey).
2. I wrote that I “used AI”.
So, since my text is blocked you must by logically necessity claim that I did not use AI properly. And effectively, while it sometimes sounds as if there is “a lot of slack”, what **you are saying is a very strict rule: Only translation is allowed and minor editing. Period.**
How can I prove that I used it properly? Show you a German text on a piece of paper so that somehow we can rule out it coming from another ChatBot?
The whole process is ridiculous and will only work reliably for slob, which indeed nobody wants including myself. You cannot prove against me reliably and I cannot prove the absence of something.
Come to terms with the tides: Look for quality and some line of thought, and maybe old-fashioned character. If it is indeed my tone and what you know me to say regularly, well then that is the human Guido talking. I hold that that is exactly what my text does convey.
---
### Author:  [@mbauman](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/mbauman)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 8:03pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/12 "2026-09-10T20:03:01Z")
Cripes man, you’re giving me flashbacks of my little sibling waving all around my face and yelling “IM NOT TOUCHING YOU.”
I’m not a software system to be probed and tested. I’m a human being. As are the other moderators here. Please don’t test us.
---
### Author:  [@goerz](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/goerz)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 8:05pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/13 "2026-09-10T20:05:49Z")
> [@gwr](#):
>
> you are saying is a very strict rule: Only translation is allowed and minor editing. Period.
Where are you getting this? There is no such rule. Not even remotely. “Translation and minor editing” are listed as _examples_ of things that are “guaranteed safe”. Use LLMs to improve posts any way you see fit. Don’t post things that anyone will immediately recognize as straight LLM output. Don’t say “This was written by an AI”.
You are not in a court of law. You don’t need to “prove” anything. If it looks like AI-slop, it may get flagged. If you think a post was flagged unfairly, reach out to the moderator.
---
### Author:  [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 8:07pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/14 "2026-09-10T20:07:20Z")
Crypes and you guys give me the vibes of Fahrenheit 451. I am all for free speech and free expression, and yes unfortunately as German given recent history, I am kind of allergic since there are some countrymen of yours there in high office who accuse Germany of censorship and violation of freedom of speech rights.
If in doubt, a text should be allowed because blocking speech should be something penultimate in my rulebook. And I believe to have made decent arguments as well.
---
### Author:  [@mbauman](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/mbauman)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 8:10pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/15 "2026-09-10T20:10:37Z")
We are not a country and you do not have free speech here.
This is a moderated forum; breaking the guidelines does not result in censorship but rather a flag that urges you to:
a) not break the rules and
b) edit your post to not break the rules
Posts are _almost never_ deleted here. They’re just flagged and hidden.
---
### Author:  [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 8:13pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/16 "2026-09-10T20:13:41Z")
All is well. Those are the rules. Still, your rules as I argued are stricter than what is allowed in scientific journals and **I don’t see where we get to vote on those rules, or do we?**
---
### Author:  [@goerz](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/goerz)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 8:19pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/17 "2026-09-10T20:19:10Z")
> [@gwr](#):
>
> as I argued
You argued it, but it was pointed out that your argument has no connection to reality. It doesn’t seem like that is getting through to you. So I’m not sure what else can be said.
So I guess we’ll leave it at that.
---
### Author:  [@Benny](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Benny)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2026, 8:34pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/18 "2026-09-10T20:34:28Z")
This post was temporarily hidden by the community for possibly being off-topic, unfocused, inappropriate, or spammy.
---
### Author:  [@kellertuer](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/kellertuer)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2026, 5:52am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/19 "2026-09-11T05:52:07Z")
Voting is the same as for free speech – this is not a state. This is a privately run forum.
If you book a hotel room, you also can not have a vote whether you are allowed to smoke.
I also do not agree, we are stricter here than journals or for example arXiv, where you might get banned for AI slop. Journals just want to make money, that is a complicated comparison.
Besides that I think you are overcomplicating things – and I am German so I am aware germans like to do that. Have a rule for everything.
But not everything can be put into rules and it is also good to not have rules everywhere but really rely on common sense, humble and nice people, and that in general everyone wants to contribute constructively (in general/the broad sense).
I think the rules here are fine as they are. We as a community have to come to an agreement what is acceptable and what not, but there is also probably not a strict line to draw as the many discussion indicate.
---
### Author:  [@gwr](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/gwr)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2026, 12:45pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315/20 "2026-09-11T12:45:00Z")
> [@kellertuer](#):
>
> Voting is the same as for free speech – this is not a state. This is a privately run forum.
> If you book a hotel room, you also can not have a vote whether you are allowed to smoke.
That is a crude example because you can still participate in the core service offered: sleep a night in a bed. You will also run into trouble if you say “only for bipods”, people with one leg may not sleep here or other discriminations. So you argument hinges a bit, because that is exactly what is at stake here: You cannot participate in a forum called “Discourse” not because you provided unhelpful or false arguments in a discussion, but because you used a prohibited tool and your text was too polished and a tad too long.
> [@kellertuer](#):
>
> Besides that I think you are overcomplicating things – and I am German so I am aware germans like to do that. Have a rule for everything.
Thanks for trying to put me into a box. The fact that everything I have addressed so far in my posts is being substantiated by the papers I cited in [my last post](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/i-don-t-want-to-read-llm-output/139244/138) in the other thread. It is instead my experience that some people from the natural sciences and engineering _oversimplify_ softer topics dealt with in the social sciences like sociology (e.g., power distribution).
> [@kellertuer](#):
>
> I think the rules here are fine as they are. We as a community have to come to an agreement what is acceptable and what not, but there is also probably not a strict line to draw as the many discussion indicate.
Do I have to take your word for it or what is the exact governance procedure here? Currently, there is a _strict_ rule (e.g., only minor editing and pure translation) with _loose administration_, i.e., the moderators have a lot of discretion to decide what is acceptable and what is not.
While you deny this being a democracy or even a state, the principles from democracy are hard to waive: _Majority rules_ but _minority rights_, clear rules are what give us a _free_ space to meet and engage to the best possible outcome. My freedom to say or write statements should entirely be judged by its content and responsibility, not its background and not depend on mere “discretion.”
> [@kellertuer](#):
>
> I also do not agree, we are stricter here than journals or for example arXiv, where you might get banned for AI slop. Journals just want to make money, that is a complicated comparison.
Certainly. But Discourse is paid for. And it is paid for by Julia Hub to my knowledge, which receives funding from organizations like [NumFOCUS](https://numfocus.org/community/mission). Such a sponsor is committed to _“promote open practices in research, data, and scientific computing”_ and envisions _“an inclusive scientific and research community”_.
I certainly wonder whether they really understand that the main discussion and announcement platform for Julia is less clear and substantially more restrictive than major science journals (e.g., disclosure and responsible use will get you published) given that the evidence for GenAI-moderation _harming_ discussions is more than inconclusive; in fact, there seems to be even evidence on the contrary as it may help to avoid misunderstanding?
[Next page](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315.md?page=2)