# 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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gwr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/gwr/32/33632_2.png) [@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")

</div>

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.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/updates-to-the-site-guidelines-especially-regarding-gen-ai/134315)._