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 lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.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 8E1A7C9830E for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 18:06:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1x9npt-0004uv-V3; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 14:06:21 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1x9npr-0004uT-Lh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 14:06:19 -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 1x9npp-0007Ev-Hm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 14:06:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1790273174; 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=f0F0NbQyoHYUtUYk8liYNCcKtstIQd3c/V7ItrymWj4=; b=gyEu0WBW+ldmLfCCEianaZPLpTgiV5CIcaI/phZgCVKucXs0d/7UI3c0pBcptbXBhArFuv 4FkknfrpEeFova995ihoSjMFBTyl4MeIc6L4SZWCNbpMCVRZhteqFbzFTOvfdlKo0yeXkl iI/32PJ43DGQp5gvF7pdEIER0ymmX58= 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-519-uholJHkTPkuinbsON28_wQ-1; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 14:06:13 -0400 X-MC-Unique: uholJHkTPkuinbsON28_wQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: uholJHkTPkuinbsON28_wQ_1790273172 Received: from mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.93]) (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 A94D81802565; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 18:06:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.44.48.118]) by mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25D40180056E; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 18:06:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 20:06:05 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Alex =?iso-8859-1?Q?Benn=E9e?= , Daniel =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=2E_Berrang=E9?= , Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alistair Francis , BALATON Zoltan , Fabiano Rosas , Peter Maydell , Warner Losh , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] docs/devel: relax policy on AI-generated contributions Message-ID: References: <20260921075251.12831-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20260921075251.12831-2-pbonzini@redhat.com> <87ik3vyp3i.fsf@draig.linaro.org> <20260924120617-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20260924120617-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.93 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=kwolf@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, 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_H2=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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: qemu development 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 Am 24.09.2026 um 18:06 hat Michael S. Tsirkin geschrieben: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 12:46:41PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 24.09.2026 um 11:29 hat Alex Bennée geschrieben: > > > Kevin Wolf writes: > > > > > > > Am 21.09.2026 um 15:20 hat Daniel P. Berrangé geschrieben: > > > >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 09:52:48AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > >> > +.. note:: **Use of AI does not remove the need for authors to comply > > > >> > + with all other requirements for contribution.** In particular, > > > >> > + the ``Signed-off-by`` label in a patch submission is a statement > > > >> > + that the author takes responsibility for the entire contents of > > > >> > + the patch, certifying that their patch submission is made in > > > >> > + accordance with the rules of the :ref:`Developer's Certificate of > > > >> > + Origin (DCO) `. > > > >> > + > > > >> > + Since a submitter cannot audit LLM output against its training > > > >> > + data, the DCO is paired with :ref:`metadata in the commit message > > > >> > + ` about AI-generated parts. The DCO still certifies > > > >> > + that the contributor has the legal right to submit code in general. > > > >> > > > >> I'm not a fan of this second paragraph, as that feels like it is undermining > > > >> the DCO. That first sentence in particular is somewhat saying that the > > > >> contributor does not have to think about plagarism and thed project is ok > > > >> with that, and also implying that the DCO doesn't apply to the LLM output. > > > >> This is both not OK in its implication of the project accepting some > > > >> liability, and then also contradicted by the next sentence. > > > >> > > > >> IMHO this paragraph should just be removed. The first paragraph clearly > > > >> states the DCO applies to the submission as a whole, and leaves all liability > > > >> for infringement on the contributor. > > > > > > > > I don't think making this the individual contributor's problem is great. > > > > It's rather unfriendly towards contributors to expect them to certify > > > > something that we all know they can't honestly certify. > > > > > > This is the current position with the DCO anyway. If the contributor has > > > copy and pasted (and maybe adapted) from Stack Overflow they are still > > > realistically the only person that can make that judgement. > > > > Yes, that's the current position with the DCO and the reasoning why we > > said LLM output is unacceptable in submissions. > > > > The big difference is if I copy and pasted from Stack Overflow, I _know_ > > that I did that. If the LLM effectively does it for me, I don't know > > that. The best I can do is check if I can find similar code elsewhere. > > You can block your LLM from accessing stack overflow. Given that training my own model from scratch isn't a realistic option, I can't block the LLM from being trained on data from Stack Overflow. Kevin