Conservation Committee asks for AI provenance and sign‑off after draft 'hallucinations'

During review of draft Appendix A and related guidance, multiple committee members raised concerns about AI‑assisted drafting and the need for explicit provenance and human ownership of final content.

Members said portions of the draft contained statements that appeared to be generated or summarized by AI and that some items were inaccurate or “hallucinated.” They recommended a standard process for AI use: clearly label material that originated from AI, provide redlines showing what staff or committee members edited or verified, and identify a named submitter who takes responsibility for fact‑checking and accuracy before public distribution.

Staff and committee members noted practical constraints — volunteers and staff may rely on AI for drafting — but agreed that public drafts distributed to the committee should indicate which sections are AI‑assisted and which have been verified against primary sources. Committee members asked for the record to show that drafts are ‘draft’ documents until a named committee member or staff person signs off.

Next steps: committee agreed to treat the draft Appendix A as a working document, to apply systematic fact‑checking before dissemination, and to have a named staff or committee lead accept responsibility for final text that goes to the council or public.