# Proposed update to our contribution policy regarding AI

**URL:** <https://gramps.discourse.group/t/proposed-update-to-our-contribution-policy-regarding-ai/7556>\
**Category:** Development\
**Tags:** ai, policy\
**Created:** [April 28, 2025, 6:05pm UTC](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/proposed-update-to-our-contribution-policy-regarding-ai/7556 "2025-04-28T18:05:35Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 19

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![emyoulation](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/gramps.discourse.group/emyoulation/32/67_2.png) [@emyoulation](https://gramps.discourse.group/u/emyoulation)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2025, 2:13am UTC](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/proposed-update-to-our-contribution-policy-regarding-ai/7556/19 "2025-04-30T02:13:42Z")

</div>

I have had experiences with Perplexity stubbornly ignoring hard boundaries.

As an example, Perplexity was provided the source document used as an example in the “[How would you start a tree from a source](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/how-would-you-start-a-tree-from-a-source/7460)” thread. And is was instructed to use that article as the exclusive and sole source to create a GEDCOM for the family of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I wrote a variety of prompts and a variety of AIs engineer prompts. But no matter how prompted, the generated GEDCOM contained historical data that was not in the source article.

This was a good test because it was easy to spot external data contamination.

So that makes me really doubt that it will stay within bounds set for any project.

---

_[View the full topic](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/proposed-update-to-our-contribution-policy-regarding-ai/7556)._