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 60EF8C5B552 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:00:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uMjxX-0000fR-C0; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 04:58:56 -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 1uMjxT-0000dg-BK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 04:58:51 -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 1uMjxP-0002qg-Nb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 04:58:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1749027525; 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=VP+qAzAl2Xg+sNyJ5AWfAphb/2D0+ijnaiIfXMV8SKo=; b=Gl66yEQLguodUQ9UCIPr6As2nRwXuyQ8T0U6BbBcb0btlqVWVBpryF2SK2bpqNNOfha5MR SGyTDbcagsG3JrAZ55OCXnPmeHYj++Cd6beHGMbKgEkUVvL+9V0X5PLf3bicnTxzfdqaVd r5HDIVjjiPQOhgiQqPIo4WtPFWPMdtI= Received: from mx-prod-mc-08.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-341-1xvVmxUkNL2aorVUXExJLQ-1; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 04:58:44 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 1xvVmxUkNL2aorVUXExJLQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: 1xvVmxUkNL2aorVUXExJLQ_1749027521 Received: from mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.40]) (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-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C14161801A2D; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:58:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (unknown [10.45.242.38]) by mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33E1C19560A3; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:58:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BD4B921E6757; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 10:58:38 +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 08:15:47 +0100") References: <20250603142524.4043193-1-armbru@redhat.com> <20250603142524.4043193-4-armbru@redhat.com> <87a56o1154.fsf@pond.sub.org> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 10:58:38 +0200 Message-ID: <87frgfyjb5.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 10.30.177.40 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 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 no= t limited >> > >> > More detail is needed on what an "AI code generator" is. Coding >> > assistant tools range from autocompletion to linters to automatic code >> > generators. In addition there are other AI-related tools like ChatGPT >> > 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. Yes. More below. >> 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 more. >> 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 results >> 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'. Makes sense, thanks! >> 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 AP= Is or >> algorithms, static analysis, or debugging. >>=20 >> Examples of tools impacted by this policy includes both GitHub's CoPil= ot, >> 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. 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? >> >> +to, `Large Language Models `__ >> >> +(LLMs) results in a number of difficult legal questions and risks fo= r software >> >> +projects, including QEMU. >>=20 >> Thanks! >>=20 >> [...] >>=20 > > With regards, > Daniel