Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: define policy forbidding use of "AI" / LLM code generators

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 11:37:15AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 10:43:05AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 10:42, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 10:33:49AM +0000, Alex Bennée wrote:
> > > > That probably means we can never use even open source LLMs to generate
> > > > code for QEMU because while the source data is all open source it won't
> > > > necessarily be GPL compatible.
> > >
> > > I would probably wait until the dust settles before we start accepting
> > > LLM generated code.
> > 
> > I think that's pretty much my take on what this policy is:
> > "say no for now; we can always come back later when the legal
> > situation seems clearer".
> 
> Yes, that was my thoughts exactly.
> 
> And if anyone comes along with a specific LLM/AI code generator that
> they believe can be used in a way compatible with the DCO, they can
> ask for an exception to the general policy which we can discuss then.

Yea. But why do you keep worrying about LLM/AI mess?  Are there code
generators whose output do allow? What are these?

-- 
MST