From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13E4EC5B552 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:42:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uMkcM-0007Ex-F9; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 05:41:06 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uMkcK-0007EU-Ba for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 05:41:04 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uMkcI-0000GB-Hh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 05:41:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1749030060; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=sSeRoDvsZtgFQKXDvRkqhjRCybJhF6ZZimN+TgbYGms=; b=YoV1LFl05cr+Td46To85iJiB94tHQUbMwhSiT5AV7wGdKr/PS+ifJzFPoxpMfiTrZT+8fz o9OCQOG02UFwhEeaP3L2SGQCXUZCRZOpDDcPdx2NloNXuNXeO2S+ZPame0hMIhsIghvAsa WRsAO8iPhdQuR2MNB0ZzCs2aTt3TEHU= Received: from mx-prod-mc-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-211-Xa-WyHXmO6uZHxOTtJ50vw-1; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 05:40:57 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Xa-WyHXmO6uZHxOTtJ50vw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: Xa-WyHXmO6uZHxOTtJ50vw_1749030056 Received: from mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.15]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07FED18004A3; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:40:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (unknown [10.45.242.38]) by mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36EC61955DDA; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:40:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8CC3B21E66C3; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 11:40:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Daniel P. =?utf-8?Q?Berrang=C3=A9?= Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Thomas Huth , Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Gerd Hoffmann , Mark Cave-Ayland , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-?= =?utf-8?Q?Daud=C3=A9?= , Kevin Wolf , Stefan Hajnoczi , Alexander Graf , Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson , Peter Maydell Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] docs: define policy forbidding use of AI code generators In-Reply-To: ("Daniel P. =?utf-8?Q?Berrang?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9=22's?= message of "Wed, 4 Jun 2025 10:22:44 +0100") References: <20250603142524.4043193-1-armbru@redhat.com> <20250603142524.4043193-4-armbru@redhat.com> <87a56o1154.fsf@pond.sub.org> <87frgfyjb5.fsf@pond.sub.org> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 11:40:52 +0200 Message-ID: <877c1rvo7v.fsf@pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.15 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -21 X-Spam_score: -2.2 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.128, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 writes: > On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 10:58:38AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 writes: >>=20 >> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 08:17:27AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> >> Stefan Hajnoczi writes: >> >>=20 >> >> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 10:25=E2=80=AFAM Markus Armbruster wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 >> > >> + >> >> >> +The increasing prevalence of AI code generators, most notably but= not limited >> >> > >> >> > More detail is needed on what an "AI code generator" is. Coding >> >> > assistant tools range from autocompletion to linters to automatic c= ode >> >> > generators. In addition there are other AI-related tools like ChatG= PT >> >> > or Gemini as a chatbot that can people use like Stackoverflow or an >> >> > API documentation summarizer. >> >> > >> >> > I think the intent is to say: do not put code that comes from _any_= AI >> >> > tool into QEMU. >> >> > >> >> > It would be okay to use AI to research APIs, algorithms, brainstorm >> >> > ideas, debug the code, analyze the code, etc but the actual code >> >> > changes must not be generated by AI. >> > >> > The scope of the policy is around contributions we receive as >> > patches with SoB. Researching / brainstorming / analysis etc >> > are not contribution activities, so not covered by the policy >> > IMHO. >>=20 >> Yes. More below. >>=20 >> >> The existing text is about "AI code generators". However, the "most >> >> notably LLMs" that follows it could lead readers to believe it's about >> >> more than just code generation, because LLMs are in fact used for mor= e. >> >> I figure this is your concern. >> >>=20 >> >> We could instead start wide, then narrow the focus to code generation. >> >> Here's my try: >> >>=20 >> >> The increasing prevalence of AI-assisted software development resul= ts >> >> in a number of difficult legal questions and risks for software >> >> projects, including QEMU. Of particular concern is code generated = by >> >> `Large Language Models >> >> `__ (LLMs). >> > >> > Documentation we maintain has the same concerns as code. >> > So I'd suggest to substitute 'code' with 'code / content'. >>=20 >> Makes sense, thanks! >>=20 >> >> If we want to mention uses of AI we consider okay, I'd do so further >> >> down, to not distract from the main point here. Perhaps: >> >>=20 >> >> The QEMU project thus requires that contributors refrain from using= AI code >> >> generators on patches intended to be submitted to the project, and = will >> >> decline any contribution if use of AI is either known or suspected. >> >>=20 >> >> This policy does not apply to other uses of AI, such as researching= APIs or >> >> algorithms, static analysis, or debugging. >> >>=20 >> >> Examples of tools impacted by this policy includes both GitHub's Co= Pilot, >> >> OpenAI's ChatGPT, and Meta's Code Llama, amongst many others which = are less >> >> well known. >> >>=20 >> >> The paragraph in the middle is new, the other two are unchanged. >> >>=20 >> >> Thoughts? >> > >> > IMHO its redundant, as the policy is expressly around contribution of >> > code/content, and those activities as not contribution related, so >> > outside the scope already. >>=20 >> The very first paragraph in this file already set the scope: "provenance >> of patch submissions [...] to the project", so you have a point here. >> But does repeating the scope here hurt or help? > > I guess it probably doesn't hurt to have it. Perhaps tweak to > > This policy does not apply to other uses of AI, such as researching APIs= or > algorithms, static analysis, or debugging, provided their output is not > to be included in contributions. > > and for the last paragraph remove 'both' and add a tailer > > Examples of tools impacted by this policy include GitHub's CoPilot, > OpenAI's ChatGPT, and Meta's Code Llama (amongst many others which are= less > well known), and code/content generation agents which are built on top= of > such tools. Sold!