From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from secure.elehost.com (secure.elehost.com [185.209.179.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E00B2D0618 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2025 16:48:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.209.179.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759510104; cv=none; b=rxUUOXjo0q7VZu+4peHyZfWsSN2pdVtcnPsJKfMTV1UWWkoMfFHU20Ixtd7xkhszEMBNrmulBbbt2Uni0q1m5EJrTWVj8uw7+2HiTaeMj3RSu7m9MXIiDM4oSMxf+9PJwqUkMAOP+k3ONBUgwZoj/epqmNwa919apWSsrZVOlGI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759510104; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rV3+hclK7daL4SunQ8xT9ewvOaNgtZLhewvm/2vyZmg=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ovavZja6G1TakpLqY4dOpYzX+bHpPDuX89oJxfyr1MucClN2XBrudpDw+MLovJzsHoIxbQaYkBrKVFFyCNdZaNS5FsYQP1s+g/CkmvCQ5GuPDkQeSQjkMTapWDMSrbukjJ+AdQkDrOOTYcO3GLMw3id/ND0kavfdi3dzu2spZLw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nexbridge.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nexbridge.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.209.179.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nexbridge.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nexbridge.com X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at secure.elehost.com Received: from Mazikeen (pool-99-228-67-183.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.228.67.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by secure.elehost.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-22ubuntu3) with ESMTPSA id 593GjnNP491307 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 3 Oct 2025 16:45:50 GMT Reply-To: From: To: "'Junio C Hamano'" , "'Christian Couder'" Cc: , "'Taylor Blau'" , "'Rick Sanders'" , "'Git at SFC'" , "'Johannes Schindelin'" , "'Patrick Steinhardt'" , "'Christian Couder'" References: <20251001140310.527097-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] SubmittingPatches: add section about AI Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 12:45:43 -0400 Organization: Nexbridge Inc. Message-ID: <061a01dc3485$2ca50820$85ef1860$@nexbridge.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQDukNemFFvhssO2I1SMimhFsqd3cQF/XLqwAlz95vkBl/qpdwJDkGo5tk4nukA= Content-Language: en-ca X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 251003-2, 10/3/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On October 3, 2025 12:21 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >Christian Couder writes: > >>> A milder way to phrase this would be to jump directly to "we reject >>> what the sender cannot explain when asked about it". "How does this >>> work?" "Why is this a good thing to do?" "Where did it come from?" >>> instead of saying "looks AI generated". >>> >>> It would sidestep the "who decides if it looks AI generated?" question. >> >> I don't think the "who decides if it looks AI generated?" question is >> very relevant. If someone says that a patch looks mostly AI generated >> and gives a good argument supporting this claim, it's the same as if >> someone gives any other good argument against the patch. In the end, >> the community and you decide if the argument is good enough and if the >> patch should be rejected based on that (and other arguments for and >> against the patch of course). > >And then who plays the final arbiter? One can keep insisting on a patch that looks >to me an apparent AI slop that it was what one wrote oneself, but you may find it a >plausible that it was a human creation. Then what? > >It is very much relevant to avoid such argument, because the point is irrelevant. We >are trying to avoid accepting something the submitter has no rights to claim theirs, >and requesting them to explain where it came from, how it works, etc. would be a >better test than "does it look AI generated? to everybody?", wouldn't it? Can the cover page from the originator contain statements that: a) I (whomever it is) has the legal authority to the submitted patch without violating any copyright. b) The code is original work and does not violate any IP laws where I (whomever) am located. c) The code is not generated from AI and/or despite being AI generated, I (whomever) have verified that the code works as anticipated and does not contain AI contents trained from another code-base or project that might otherwise violate b), and that I (whomever) accept all responsibility for falsely making this statement. This could be changed to an agreement maintained by the Conservancy prior to Accepting any non-trivial contributions providing the agreement is referenced in Either the cover page or commit comments.