add guideline on AI contributions

[lukaspie]

No description provided.

[mkuehbach]

Good draft, makes sense to me reading, decision should be with NOMAD management and executive board though, whether we as "The NOMAD Authors" here agree on this policy. I support the here suggested pragmatic approach, specifically the statement in L160 I find good, raising the particular and the non-delegatable awareness on responsibility of humans on AI usage.

The "should" statement in my opinion is too weak to assure provenance of AI usage is collected. Instead, we should rather formulate it strict for now and then professionalize
the wording in the docs throughout to follow e.g. the semantics of "should, must, needs" from a standard e.g. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119

The following of the standard can be a future work.
Making the formulation on the "should" stricter already may help guarding against misunderstandings.

[lukaspie]

The "should" statement in my opinion is too weak to assure provenance of AI usage is collected. Instead, we should rather formulate it strict for now and then professionalize the wording in the docs throughout to follow e.g. the semantics of "should, must, needs" from a standard e.g. datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119

I changed the two "should" statement to "must" now