[PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
---

Hi!

I've already been DDoSed in my own home server by AI crawlers (which is
the reason I decided to move the HTTPS server to port 80, just to break
links and stop the madness.  I could install Anubis, but I'll resist for
some time.

So far, I haven't noticed any contributors using AI.  Probably, the
combination of relatively few people contributing documentation,
combined with still working on a mailing list, has helped us avoid the
wave of AI contributions.

However, it's better to take preventive measures.  AI is entirely banned
in this project.  The guidelines are clear and concise.


Have a lovely night!
Alex


 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..1e211a4de
--- /dev/null
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+Name
+	AI - using artificial intelligence for contributing
+
+Description
+	Any use of AI for contributing to this project is unacceptable.
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/14/25 5:27 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> ---
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I've already been DDoSed in my own home server by AI crawlers (which is
> the reason I decided to move the HTTPS server to port 80, just to break
> links and stop the madness.  I could install Anubis, but I'll resist for
> some time.
> 
> So far, I haven't noticed any contributors using AI.  Probably, the
> combination of relatively few people contributing documentation,
> combined with still working on a mailing list, has helped us avoid the
> wave of AI contributions.
> 
> However, it's better to take preventive measures.  AI is entirely banned
> in this project.  The guidelines are clear and concise.
> 
> 
> Have a lovely night!
> Alex
> 
> 
>   CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 5 +++++
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> 
> diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..1e211a4de
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> +Name
> +	AI - using artificial intelligence for contributing
> +
> +Description
> +	Any use of AI for contributing to this project is unacceptable.

Does this ban the use of LLMs in assistive technologies like screen readers
for the blind, or speech to text for those with mobility issues?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 568 bytes --]

Hi Carlos,

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 05:32:17PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > +Name
> > +	AI - using artificial intelligence for contributing
> > +
> > +Description
> > +	Any use of AI for contributing to this project is unacceptable.
> 
> Does this ban the use of LLMs in assistive technologies like screen readers
> for the blind, or speech to text for those with mobility issues?

I'd have to analyze case-by-case for allowing exceptions.


Have a lovely night!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/14/25 5:52 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 05:32:17PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> +Name
>>> +	AI - using artificial intelligence for contributing
>>> +
>>> +Description
>>> +	Any use of AI for contributing to this project is unacceptable.
>>
>> Does this ban the use of LLMs in assistive technologies like screen readers
>> for the blind, or speech to text for those with mobility issues?
> 
> I'd have to analyze case-by-case for allowing exceptions.

May we please have exception language for these cases?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Collin Funk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1156 bytes --]

Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:

> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> ---
>
> Hi!
>
> I've already been DDoSed in my own home server by AI crawlers (which is
> the reason I decided to move the HTTPS server to port 80, just to break
> links and stop the madness.  I could install Anubis, but I'll resist for
> some time.
>
> So far, I haven't noticed any contributors using AI.  Probably, the
> combination of relatively few people contributing documentation,
> combined with still working on a mailing list, has helped us avoid the
> wave of AI contributions.
>
> However, it's better to take preventive measures.  AI is entirely banned
> in this project.  The guidelines are clear and concise.

It might be good to provide a sentence or two of reasoning, to avoid
repeated questions on the list.

My main concern with accepting AI contributions is the current lack of
legislation and case law in the United States with respect to the
copyright-ability of the output. I also don't trust AI answers much, but
that theoretically could change in the future as technology improves (or
less people blindly trust the output).

Collin

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1591 bytes --]

Hi Collin,

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 02:39:19PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> > So far, I haven't noticed any contributors using AI.  Probably, the
> > combination of relatively few people contributing documentation,
> > combined with still working on a mailing list, has helped us avoid the
> > wave of AI contributions.
> >
> > However, it's better to take preventive measures.  AI is entirely banned
> > in this project.  The guidelines are clear and concise.
> 
> It might be good to provide a sentence or two of reasoning, to avoid
> repeated questions on the list.
> 
> My main concern with accepting AI contributions is the current lack of
> legislation and case law in the United States with respect to the
> copyright-ability of the output. I also don't trust AI answers much, but
> that theoretically could change in the future as technology improves (or
> less people blindly trust the output).

I have many concerns, including copyright, licensing, quality, and also
harm to the environment.  I posted this patch to the mailing list so
that we have a resource to point to for complete discussion, instead of
just including a sentence or two, which would necessarily be incomplete.

I might include a note saying something like

	if you believe your use of AI is necessary for a major reason,
	please disclose it and ask for an exception

for covering some cases where health is involved (such as what Carlos
mentioned).


Have a lovely night!
Alex

> 
> Collin



-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/14/25 5:59 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Collin,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 02:39:19PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
>>> So far, I haven't noticed any contributors using AI.  Probably, the
>>> combination of relatively few people contributing documentation,
>>> combined with still working on a mailing list, has helped us avoid the
>>> wave of AI contributions.
>>>
>>> However, it's better to take preventive measures.  AI is entirely banned
>>> in this project.  The guidelines are clear and concise.
>>
>> It might be good to provide a sentence or two of reasoning, to avoid
>> repeated questions on the list.
>>
>> My main concern with accepting AI contributions is the current lack of
>> legislation and case law in the United States with respect to the
>> copyright-ability of the output. I also don't trust AI answers much, but
>> that theoretically could change in the future as technology improves (or
>> less people blindly trust the output).
> 
> I have many concerns, including copyright, licensing, quality, and also
> harm to the environment.  I posted this patch to the mailing list so
> that we have a resource to point to for complete discussion, instead of
> just including a sentence or two, which would necessarily be incomplete.
> 
> I might include a note saying something like
> 
> 	if you believe your use of AI is necessary for a major reason,
> 	please disclose it and ask for an exception
> 
> for covering some cases where health is involved (such as what Carlos
> mentioned).

Requiring such disclosure of health issues may be illegal and discriminatory
in many jurisdictions. I urge caution here and recommend we not go in that
direction.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 631 bytes --]

Hi Carlos,

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 06:03:12PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > 	if you believe your use of AI is necessary for a major reason,
> > 	please disclose it and ask for an exception
> > 
> > for covering some cases where health is involved (such as what Carlos
> > mentioned).
> 
> Requiring such disclosure of health issues may be illegal and discriminatory
> in many jurisdictions. I urge caution here and recommend we not go in that
> direction.

Hmmm, true.  Do you have any suggestions for the wording?


Cheers,
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1160 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 12:10:33AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 06:03:12PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > > 	if you believe your use of AI is necessary for a major reason,
> > > 	please disclose it and ask for an exception
> > > 
> > > for covering some cases where health is involved (such as what Carlos
> > > mentioned).
> > 
> > Requiring such disclosure of health issues may be illegal and discriminatory
> > in many jurisdictions. I urge caution here and recommend we not go in that
> > direction.
> 
> Hmmm, true.  Do you have any suggestions for the wording?

How about this?

	Name
		AI - using artificial intelligence for contributing

	Description
		Any use of AI for contributing to this project is unacceptable.

		AI is harmful for many reasons, including --but not limited to--
		copyright and/or licensing, quality, and harm to the
		environment.

	Caveats
		If you believe your use of AI is necessary for a major reason,
		please disclose the use of AI, and ask for an exception.




-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/14/25 6:20 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 12:10:33AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 06:03:12PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>>> 	if you believe your use of AI is necessary for a major reason,
>>>> 	please disclose it and ask for an exception
>>>>
>>>> for covering some cases where health is involved (such as what Carlos
>>>> mentioned).
>>>
>>> Requiring such disclosure of health issues may be illegal and discriminatory
>>> in many jurisdictions. I urge caution here and recommend we not go in that
>>> direction.
>>
>> Hmmm, true.  Do you have any suggestions for the wording?
> 
> How about this?
> 
> 	Name
> 		AI - using artificial intelligence for contributing
> 
> 	Description
> 		Any use of AI for contributing to this project is unacceptable.
> 
> 		AI is harmful for many reasons, including --but not limited to--
> 		copyright and/or licensing, quality, and harm to the
> 		environment.
> 
> 	Caveats
> 		If you believe your use of AI is necessary for a major reason,
> 		please disclose the use of AI, and ask for an exception.
> 
> 
> 
> 

I suggest reviewing what other projects have done, like QEMU:
https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/devel/code-provenance.html#use-of-ai-generated-content

Which limits only "contributions which are believed to include or derive from AI generated content".

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/14/25 5:39 PM, Collin Funk wrote:
> Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
>> ---
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I've already been DDoSed in my own home server by AI crawlers (which is
>> the reason I decided to move the HTTPS server to port 80, just to break
>> links and stop the madness.  I could install Anubis, but I'll resist for
>> some time.
>>
>> So far, I haven't noticed any contributors using AI.  Probably, the
>> combination of relatively few people contributing documentation,
>> combined with still working on a mailing list, has helped us avoid the
>> wave of AI contributions.
>>
>> However, it's better to take preventive measures.  AI is entirely banned
>> in this project.  The guidelines are clear and concise.
> 
> It might be good to provide a sentence or two of reasoning, to avoid
> repeated questions on the list.
> 
> My main concern with accepting AI contributions is the current lack of
> legislation and case law in the United States with respect to the
> copyright-ability of the output. I also don't trust AI answers much, but
> that theoretically could change in the future as technology improves (or
> less people blindly trust the output).

... and what about EU contributors?

Upstream has to deal with the complex jurisdictional intersection of laws.

I recommend simple and easy to follow policy.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Collin Funk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 715 bytes --]

Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> writes:

>> My main concern with accepting AI contributions is the current lack
>> of
>> legislation and case law in the United States with respect to the
>> copyright-ability of the output. I also don't trust AI answers much, but
>> that theoretically could change in the future as technology improves (or
>> less people blindly trust the output).
>
> ... and what about EU contributors?
>
> Upstream has to deal with the complex jurisdictional intersection of laws.
>
> I recommend simple and easy to follow policy.

Thanks for mentioning it. I didn't mean to imply that the EU and other
jurisdictions are not important. I just do not know much about their
situations.

Collin

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/14/25 6:16 PM, Collin Funk wrote:
> Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>>> My main concern with accepting AI contributions is the current lack
>>> of
>>> legislation and case law in the United States with respect to the
>>> copyright-ability of the output. I also don't trust AI answers much, but
>>> that theoretically could change in the future as technology improves (or
>>> less people blindly trust the output).
>>
>> ... and what about EU contributors?
>>
>> Upstream has to deal with the complex jurisdictional intersection of laws.
>>
>> I recommend simple and easy to follow policy.
> 
> Thanks for mentioning it. I didn't mean to imply that the EU and other
> jurisdictions are not important. I just do not know much about their
> situations.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that either!

The question was mostly a rhetorical vehicle to get to my point.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/14/25 5:27 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> ---
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I've already been DDoSed in my own home server by AI crawlers (which is
> the reason I decided to move the HTTPS server to port 80, just to break
> links and stop the madness.  I could install Anubis, but I'll resist for
> some time.

It does not logically follow that because there are bad actors we should
ban a particular tool that the bad actors use.

> So far, I haven't noticed any contributors using AI.  Probably, the
> combination of relatively few people contributing documentation,
> combined with still working on a mailing list, has helped us avoid the
> wave of AI contributions.
> 
> However, it's better to take preventive measures.  AI is entirely banned
> in this project.  The guidelines are clear and concise.
  
Why?

(1) Document intent.

I don't support a ban without a justification.

That justification can be on moral or ethical grounds, or even on the
grounds of energy used vs outcomes achieved.

(2) Document acceptable use.

We should also talk about where it would be acceptable to use such tools,
for example could the tool check spelling, or grammar? Something that
is likely already done by expert systems (that exist somewhere on the
continuum of symbol manipulators all the way to large neural networks).
  
> Have a lovely night!
> Alex
> 
> 
>   CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 5 +++++
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> 
> diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..1e211a4de
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> +Name
> +	AI - using artificial intelligence for contributing
> +
> +Description
> +	Any use of AI for contributing to this project is unacceptable.


-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1778 bytes --]

Hi Carlos,

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 05:54:41PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > I've already been DDoSed in my own home server by AI crawlers (which is
> > the reason I decided to move the HTTPS server to port 80, just to break
> > links and stop the madness.  I could install Anubis, but I'll resist for
> > some time.
> 
> It does not logically follow that because there are bad actors we should
> ban a particular tool that the bad actors use.

It's not the main reason, but it's something I wanted to note in the
discussion.

> > So far, I haven't noticed any contributors using AI.  Probably, the
> > combination of relatively few people contributing documentation,
> > combined with still working on a mailing list, has helped us avoid the
> > wave of AI contributions.
> > 
> > However, it's better to take preventive measures.  AI is entirely banned
> > in this project.  The guidelines are clear and concise.
> Why?
> 
> (1) Document intent.
> 
> I don't support a ban without a justification.
> 
> That justification can be on moral or ethical grounds, or even on the
> grounds of energy used vs outcomes achieved.

Okay, I'll add some generic justification.

> (2) Document acceptable use.
> 
> We should also talk about where it would be acceptable to use such tools,
> for example could the tool check spelling, or grammar?

I explicitly want to disallow such uses.  I think using AI to lint code
(documentation or C source code) is dangerous, as it puts trust in the
AI system to find issues.  The AI system might trick you to accidentally
introduce typos or bugs, or it could create a false sense of
correctness or safety.


Cheers,
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/14/25 6:15 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 05:54:41PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> I've already been DDoSed in my own home server by AI crawlers (which is
>>> the reason I decided to move the HTTPS server to port 80, just to break
>>> links and stop the madness.  I could install Anubis, but I'll resist for
>>> some time.
>>
>> It does not logically follow that because there are bad actors we should
>> ban a particular tool that the bad actors use.
> 
> It's not the main reason, but it's something I wanted to note in the
> discussion.
> 
>>> So far, I haven't noticed any contributors using AI.  Probably, the
>>> combination of relatively few people contributing documentation,
>>> combined with still working on a mailing list, has helped us avoid the
>>> wave of AI contributions.
>>>
>>> However, it's better to take preventive measures.  AI is entirely banned
>>> in this project.  The guidelines are clear and concise.
>> Why?
>>
>> (1) Document intent.
>>
>> I don't support a ban without a justification.
>>
>> That justification can be on moral or ethical grounds, or even on the
>> grounds of energy used vs outcomes achieved.
> 
> Okay, I'll add some generic justification.
> 
>> (2) Document acceptable use.
>>
>> We should also talk about where it would be acceptable to use such tools,
>> for example could the tool check spelling, or grammar?
> 
> I explicitly want to disallow such uses.  I think using AI to lint code
> (documentation or C source code) is dangerous, as it puts trust in the
> AI system to find issues.  The AI system might trick you to accidentally
> introduce typos or bugs, or it could create a false sense of
> correctness or safety.

We're getting into ethical territory here.

What I put my trust in or not, is none of the project's business.

The color of my socks is none of the project's business too.

We should accept contributions that meet our contribution policy?

This includes a clear license, clear and unambiguous copyright,
and a level of quality and correctness that we review with human
reviewers?

Consider QEMU's policy:
https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/devel/code-provenance.html#use-of-ai-generated-content

Likewise Gentoo's policy:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Collin Funk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 819 bytes --]

Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> writes:

> We should accept contributions that meet our contribution policy?
>
> This includes a clear license, clear and unambiguous copyright,
> and a level of quality and correctness that we review with human
> reviewers?
>
> Consider QEMU's policy:
> https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/devel/code-provenance.html#use-of-ai-generated-content
>
> Likewise Gentoo's policy:
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy

Git is also likely to add a policy based on QEMU's policy [1].

I believe they wrote it with input from the Software Freedom
Conservancy, but can't seem to find an exact quote on that.

Maybe it is best to take inspiration from them instead of trying to
write a policy from scratch.

Collin

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqcyalm0mh.fsf@gitster.g/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2296 bytes --]

[CC += Sam]

Hi Carlos,

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 08:16:24PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > > (2) Document acceptable use.
> > > 
> > > We should also talk about where it would be acceptable to use such tools,
> > > for example could the tool check spelling, or grammar?
> > 
> > I explicitly want to disallow such uses.  I think using AI to lint code
> > (documentation or C source code) is dangerous, as it puts trust in the
> > AI system to find issues.  The AI system might trick you to accidentally
> > introduce typos or bugs, or it could create a false sense of
> > correctness or safety.
> 
> We're getting into ethical territory here.
> 
> What I put my trust in or not, is none of the project's business.

I think what you put your trust in or not is our business.  I might not
want to put my trust in someone who puts its trust in something that
I consider dangerous for the quality of the project.

> The color of my socks is none of the project's business too.

It's not.

> We should accept contributions that meet our contribution policy?
> 
> This includes a clear license, clear and unambiguous copyright,
> and a level of quality and correctness that we review with human
> reviewers?

I think human reviewers are unable to review AI-generated content, no
matter how good the human is.

I'd consider AI-generated content to be as if produced by Jia Tan.
I wouldn't want to be revieweing Jia Tan's code, as there's a chance
that I'll miss something eventually.

If someone trusts itself enough to review Jia Tan's code (or AI code),
I'm going to not want to trust that person for contributing.
If anyone was really capable to review such code without mistakes,
that person would probably be capable of writing such good code by hand
(or with the help of deterministic tools) in the first place, and
faster, anyway.

> Consider QEMU's policy:
> https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/devel/code-provenance.html#use-of-ai-generated-content
> 
> Likewise Gentoo's policy:
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy

I'm more inclined to copy Gentoo's policy.  It seems to disallow any
use, as I had in mind.


Have a lovely day!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[PATCH v2] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
---
 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..6054efc9a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+Name
+	AI - using artificial intelligence for contributing
+
+Description
+	Any use of AI for contributing to this project is unacceptable.
+
+Caveats
+	If you believe your use of AI is necessary for a major reason
+	(e.g., health), please disclose it, and ask for an exception.

base-commit: ac6f5c32b3fae7549c5a42d96a3273adc24e5023
-- 
2.51.0

[PATCH v3] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).

Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
---

Hi!

I changed obvious wording, such as replacing the project name.
On top of that, I removed a misleading sentence:

	They are capable of providing good assistance if you are careful
	enough, but we can't really rely on that.

I don't think it's possible to be careful enough.


Have a lovely day!
Alex

 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..92d5d85d6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+Name
+	AI - using artificial intelligence for contributing
+
+Description
+	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
+	content that has been created with the assistance of artificial
+	intelligence tools.
+
+    Concerns
+	Copyright concerns.
+		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
+		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
+		such material could pose a danger of copyright
+		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
+		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
+
+	Quality concerns.
+		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
+		looking, but meaningless content.  At this point, they
+		pose both the risk of lowering the quality of a project,
+		and of requiring an unfair human effort from
+		contributors and maintainers to review contributions and
+		detect the mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
+
+	Ethical concerns.
+		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
+		concerns.  Among them:
+
+		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
+		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
+		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
+		   use of energy and water.
+		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
+		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
+		   service quality.
+		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
+		   efforts.
+
+Caveats
+	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
+	a tool that does not pose copyright, ethical, and quality
+	concerns.

base-commit: ac6f5c32b3fae7549c5a42d96a3273adc24e5023
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH v3] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2991 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 01:21:03PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
> 
> Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
> Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
> Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
> Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> ---
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I changed obvious wording, such as replacing the project name.
> On top of that, I removed a misleading sentence:
> 
> 	They are capable of providing good assistance if you are careful
> 	enough, but we can't really rely on that.
> 
> I don't think it's possible to be careful enough.

Ah, and I removed the reference to LLMs, banning all AIs in general.

> 
> 
> Have a lovely day!
> Alex
> 
>  CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> 
> diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..92d5d85d6
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
> +Name
> +	AI - using artificial intelligence for contributing
> +
> +Description
> +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> +	content that has been created with the assistance of artificial
> +	intelligence tools.
> +
> +    Concerns
> +	Copyright concerns.
> +		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
> +		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
> +		such material could pose a danger of copyright
> +		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
> +		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
> +
> +	Quality concerns.
> +		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
> +		looking, but meaningless content.  At this point, they
> +		pose both the risk of lowering the quality of a project,
> +		and of requiring an unfair human effort from
> +		contributors and maintainers to review contributions and
> +		detect the mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
> +
> +	Ethical concerns.
> +		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
> +		concerns.  Among them:
> +
> +		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
> +		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
> +		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
> +		   use of energy and water.
> +		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
> +		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
> +		   service quality.
> +		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
> +		   efforts.
> +
> +Caveats
> +	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
> +	a tool that does not pose copyright, ethical, and quality
> +	concerns.
> 
> base-commit: ac6f5c32b3fae7549c5a42d96a3273adc24e5023
> -- 
> 2.51.0
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/15/25 7:21 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
> 
> Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
> Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
> Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
> Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> ---

Needs a v4 so we can review the final CC-BY-SA-4.0 license requirements.

> Hi!
> 
> I changed obvious wording, such as replacing the project name.
> On top of that, I removed a misleading sentence:
> 
> 	They are capable of providing good assistance if you are careful
> 	enough, but we can't really rely on that.
> 
> I don't think it's possible to be careful enough.
> 
> 
> Have a lovely day!
> Alex
> 
>   CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> 
> diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..92d5d85d6
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
> +Name
> +	AI - using artificial intelligence for contributing
> +
> +Description
> +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> +	content that has been created with the assistance of artificial
> +	intelligence tools.

OK.

Though it has been discussed on-list that this policy could be seen as
forbiding assistive technologies, but that this was not the intent of
the Gentoo Council's wording.

I don't have better wording.

> +
> +    Concerns
> +	Copyright concerns.
> +		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
> +		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
> +		such material could pose a danger of copyright
> +		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
> +		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
> +
> +	Quality concerns.
> +		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
> +		looking, but meaningless content.  At this point, they
> +		pose both the risk of lowering the quality of a project,
> +		and of requiring an unfair human effort from
> +		contributors and maintainers to review contributions and
> +		detect the mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
> +
> +	Ethical concerns.
> +		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
> +		concerns.  Among them:
> +
> +		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
> +		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
> +		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
> +		   use of energy and water.
> +		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
> +		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
> +		   service quality.
> +		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
> +		   efforts.
> +
> +Caveats
> +	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
> +	a tool that does not pose copyright, ethical, and quality
> +	concerns.

The original content is CC-BY-SA 4.0, and so you need attribution and
a link to the license and a statement that you altered it.

e.g.
This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).
Text derived from the [Gentoo project AI policy](https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy), used under the Creative Commons Attribution license.

> 
> base-commit: ac6f5c32b3fae7549c5a42d96a3273adc24e5023


-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH v3] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1619 bytes --]

Hi Carlos,

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 09:25:14AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> 
> Needs a v4 so we can review the final CC-BY-SA-4.0 license requirements.

Oops, I missed that.  Sorry!

> > +Description
> > +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> > +	content that has been created with the assistance of artificial
> > +	intelligence tools.
> 
> OK.
> 
> Though it has been discussed on-list that this policy could be seen as
> forbiding assistive technologies, but that this was not the intent of
> the Gentoo Council's wording.

Didn't they?  Do you have a source for that?

> I don't have better wording.

Okay.

> > +Caveats
> > +	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
> > +	a tool that does not pose copyright, ethical, and quality
> > +	concerns.
> 
> The original content is CC-BY-SA 4.0, and so you need attribution and
> a link to the license and a statement that you altered it.
> 
> e.g.
> This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).
> Text derived from the [Gentoo project AI policy](https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy), used under the Creative Commons Attribution license.

I'll send v4 later.  I have written this, at the bottom:

	Copyright
		SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0

		Text derived from the Gentoo project AI policy
		<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.

Cheers,
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/15/25 10:03 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 09:25:14AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>
>> Needs a v4 so we can review the final CC-BY-SA-4.0 license requirements.
> 
> Oops, I missed that.  Sorry!
> 
>>> +Description
>>> +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
>>> +	content that has been created with the assistance of artificial
>>> +	intelligence tools.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> Though it has been discussed on-list that this policy could be seen as
>> forbiding assistive technologies, but that this was not the intent of
>> the Gentoo Council's wording.
> 
> Didn't they?  Do you have a source for that?

https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/5523336.irdbgypaU6@kona/
~~~
As someone who was present at the initital discussion, I can assure that
banning accessibility helps was not the intention.
~~~
- Andreas Huettel

>> I don't have better wording.
> 
> Okay.
> 
>>> +Caveats
>>> +	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
>>> +	a tool that does not pose copyright, ethical, and quality
>>> +	concerns.
>>
>> The original content is CC-BY-SA 4.0, and so you need attribution and
>> a link to the license and a statement that you altered it.
>>
>> e.g.
>> This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).
>> Text derived from the [Gentoo project AI policy](https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy), used under the Creative Commons Attribution license.
> 
> I'll send v4 later.  I have written this, at the bottom:
> 
> 	Copyright
> 		SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
> 
> 		Text derived from the Gentoo project AI policy
> 		<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
> 
> Cheers,
> Alex
> 


-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH v3] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Sam James]

Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> writes:

> On 10/15/25 10:03 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>> Hi Carlos,
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 09:25:14AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>>
>>> Needs a v4 so we can review the final CC-BY-SA-4.0 license requirements.
>> Oops, I missed that.  Sorry!
>> 
>>>> +Description
>>>> +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
>>>> +	content that has been created with the assistance of artificial
>>>> +	intelligence tools.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> Though it has been discussed on-list that this policy could be seen as
>>> forbiding assistive technologies, but that this was not the intent of
>>> the Gentoo Council's wording.
>> Didn't they?  Do you have a source for that?
>
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/5523336.irdbgypaU6@kona/
> ~~~
> As someone who was present at the initital discussion, I can assure that
> banning accessibility helps was not the intention.
> ~~~
> - Andreas Huettel

+1 (as someone else who also voted on it). We may amend it to make this
part clear in future.

>
>>> I don't have better wording.
>> Okay.
>> 
>>>> +Caveats
>>>> +	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
>>>> +	a tool that does not pose copyright, ethical, and quality
>>>> +	concerns.
>>>
>>> The original content is CC-BY-SA 4.0, and so you need attribution and
>>> a link to the license and a statement that you altered it.
>>>
>>> e.g.
>>> This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).
>>> Text derived from the [Gentoo project AI policy](https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy), used under the Creative Commons Attribution license.
>> I'll send v4 later.  I have written this, at the bottom:
>> 	Copyright
>> 		SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
>> 		Text derived from the Gentoo project AI policy
>> 		<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
>> Cheers,
>> Alex
>> 

Re: [PATCH v3] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1317 bytes --]

Hi Carlos, Sam,

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 03:51:33PM +0100, Sam James wrote:
> >>> Though it has been discussed on-list that this policy could be seen as
> >>> forbiding assistive technologies, but that this was not the intent of
> >>> the Gentoo Council's wording.
> >> Didn't they?  Do you have a source for that?
> >
> > https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/5523336.irdbgypaU6@kona/
> > ~~~
> > As someone who was present at the initital discussion, I can assure that
> > banning accessibility helps was not the intention.
> > ~~~
> > - Andreas Huettel
> 
> +1 (as someone else who also voted on it). We may amend it to make this
> part clear in future.

Thanks.  I find the wording to imply that it also prohibits assistive
technologies (and I like that sense).  I'd add a paragraph claifying it
in the sense of disallowing them:

	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
	content that has been created with the assistance of artificial
	intelligence tools.

	This also includes AI-based assistive tools used in the
	contributing process, even if such tools do not generate the
	contributed code.

This includes for example AI-based linters and static analyzers.


Cheers,
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Sam James]

Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:

> Hi Carlos, Sam,
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 03:51:33PM +0100, Sam James wrote:
>> >>> Though it has been discussed on-list that this policy could be seen as
>> >>> forbiding assistive technologies, but that this was not the intent of
>> >>> the Gentoo Council's wording.
>> >> Didn't they?  Do you have a source for that?
>> >
>> > https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/5523336.irdbgypaU6@kona/
>> > ~~~
>> > As someone who was present at the initital discussion, I can assure that
>> > banning accessibility helps was not the intention.
>> > ~~~
>> > - Andreas Huettel
>> 
>> +1 (as someone else who also voted on it). We may amend it to make this
>> part clear in future.
>
> Thanks.  I find the wording to imply that it also prohibits assistive
> technologies (and I like that sense).  I'd add a paragraph claifying it
> in the sense of disallowing them:

Eh? We're saying we *don't* want to do that.

>
> 	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> 	content that has been created with the assistance of artificial
> 	intelligence tools.
>
> 	This also includes AI-based assistive tools used in the
> 	contributing process, even if such tools do not generate the
> 	contributed code.
>
> This includes for example AI-based linters and static analyzers.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Alex

Re: [PATCH v3] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1727 bytes --]

Hi Sam,

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 05:09:00PM +0100, Sam James wrote:
> Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > Hi Carlos, Sam,
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 03:51:33PM +0100, Sam James wrote:
> >> >>> Though it has been discussed on-list that this policy could be seen as
> >> >>> forbiding assistive technologies, but that this was not the intent of
> >> >>> the Gentoo Council's wording.
> >> >> Didn't they?  Do you have a source for that?
> >> >
> >> > https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/5523336.irdbgypaU6@kona/
> >> > ~~~
> >> > As someone who was present at the initital discussion, I can assure that
> >> > banning accessibility helps was not the intention.
> >> > ~~~
> >> > - Andreas Huettel
> >> 
> >> +1 (as someone else who also voted on it). We may amend it to make this
> >> part clear in future.
> >
> > Thanks.  I find the wording to imply that it also prohibits assistive
> > technologies (and I like that sense).  I'd add a paragraph claifying it
> > in the sense of disallowing them:
> 
> Eh? We're saying we *don't* want to do that.

Yup.  I'm saying I disagree with you, which is why I added a paragraph
clarifying the sense.


Cheers,
Alex

> >
> > 	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> > 	content that has been created with the assistance of artificial
> > 	intelligence tools.
> >
> > 	This also includes AI-based assistive tools used in the
> > 	contributing process, even if such tools do not generate the
> > 	contributed code.
> >
> > This includes for example AI-based linters and static analyzers.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Sam James]

> On 15 Oct 2025, at 17:21, Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sam,
> 
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 05:09:00PM +0100, Sam James wrote:
>> Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:
>> 
>>> Hi Carlos, Sam,
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 03:51:33PM +0100, Sam James wrote:
>>>>>>> Though it has been discussed on-list that this policy could be seen as
>>>>>>> forbiding assistive technologies, but that this was not the intent of
>>>>>>> the Gentoo Council's wording.
>>>>>> Didn't they?  Do you have a source for that?
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/5523336.irdbgypaU6@kona/
>>>>> ~~~
>>>>> As someone who was present at the initital discussion, I can assure that
>>>>> banning accessibility helps was not the intention.
>>>>> ~~~
>>>>> - Andreas Huettel
>>>> 
>>>> +1 (as someone else who also voted on it). We may amend it to make this
>>>> part clear in future.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.  I find the wording to imply that it also prohibits assistive
>>> technologies (and I like that sense).  I'd add a paragraph claifying it
>>> in the sense of disallowing them:
>> 
>> Eh? We're saying we *don't* want to do that.
> 
> Yup.  I'm saying I disagree with you, which is why I added a paragraph
> clarifying the sense.
> 

OK, but that's not a clarification, it's a substantive change (that I don't think there's consensus for).
> 
> Cheers,
> Alex
> 
>>> 
>>>    It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
>>>    content that has been created with the assistance of artificial
>>>    intelligence tools.
>>> 
>>>    This also includes AI-based assistive tools used in the
>>>    contributing process, even if such tools do not generate the
>>>    contributed code.
>>> 
>>> This includes for example AI-based linters and static analyzers.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Alex
> 
> --
> <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
> Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).
> <signature.asc>

[PATCH v4] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
However, I've modified our text to be more restrictive.

Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
---

Hi!

In v4, I've added a paragraph clarifying that AI assistive tools are
also included in the bad.

I've also modified 'Quality concerns' to say that AI tools should be
considered adversarial, as if controlled by Jia Tan.

And I've added a copyright notice at the bottom.


Have a lovely day!
Alex


 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..faab2df1b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+Name
+	AI - artificial intelligence policy
+
+Description
+	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
+	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
+
+	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
+	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
+	code.
+
+    Concerns
+	Copyright concerns.
+		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
+		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
+		such material could pose a danger of copyright
+		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
+		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
+
+	Quality concerns.
+		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
+		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
+		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
+		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
+		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
+		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
+
+		AI tools should be considered adversarial, as if they
+		were a black box with Jia Tan inside them.
+
+	Ethical concerns.
+		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
+		concerns.  Among them:
+
+		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
+		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
+		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
+		   use of energy and water.
+		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
+		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
+		   service quality.
+		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
+		   efforts.
+
+Caveats
+	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
+	a tool that does not pose copyright, ethical, and quality
+	concerns.
+
+Copyright
+	Text derived from the Gentoo project AI policy
+	<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
+
+	SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
+
+See also
+	<https://tukaani.org/xz-backdoor/>

base-commit: ac6f5c32b3fae7549c5a42d96a3273adc24e5023
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH v4] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/15/25 11:50 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
> However, I've modified our text to be more restrictive.
> 
> Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
> Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
> Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
> Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> ---
> 
> Hi!
> 
> In v4, I've added a paragraph clarifying that AI assistive tools are
> also included in the bad.

Isn't this the *opposite* of Gentoo's policy and QEMU's policy?

We should base the contribution policy on things we can objectively
measure and claim.

Rejecting AI content in contributions is objective and measurable
since you can't attest the DCO clearly with this content.

> I've also modified 'Quality concerns' to say that AI tools should be
> considered adversarial, as if controlled by Jia Tan.
> 
> And I've added a copyright notice at the bottom.
> 
> 
> Have a lovely day!
> Alex
> 
> 
>   CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> 
> diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..faab2df1b
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
> +Name
> +	AI - artificial intelligence policy
> +
> +Description
> +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> +	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.

This is OK, the forbiddance is on the created content.

> +
> +	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> +	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
> +	code.

I object strongly to this paragraph.

It is the *opposite* of what Gentoo's policy intended.

This is policy over-reach into the lives of contributors.

> +    Concerns
> +	Copyright concerns.
> +		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
> +		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
> +		such material could pose a danger of copyright
> +		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
> +		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
> +
> +	Quality concerns.
> +		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
> +		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
> +		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
> +		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
> +		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
> +		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
> +
> +		AI tools should be considered adversarial, as if they
> +		were a black box with Jia Tan inside them.
> +
> +	Ethical concerns.
> +		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
> +		concerns.  Among them:
> +
> +		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
> +		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
> +		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
> +		   use of energy and water.
> +		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
> +		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
> +		   service quality.
> +		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
> +		   efforts.
> +
> +Caveats
> +	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
> +	a tool that does not pose copyright, ethical, and quality
> +	concerns.
> +
> +Copyright
> +	Text derived from the Gentoo project AI policy
> +	<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
> +
> +	SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
> +
> +See also
> +	<https://tukaani.org/xz-backdoor/>
> 
> base-commit: ac6f5c32b3fae7549c5a42d96a3273adc24e5023


-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH v4] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[G. Branden Robinson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2466 bytes --]

Hi Alex,

At 2025-10-15T12:03:07-0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > In v4, I've added a paragraph clarifying that AI assistive tools are
> > also included in the bad.
> 
> Isn't this the *opposite* of Gentoo's policy and QEMU's policy?
> 
> We should base the contribution policy on things we can objectively
> measure and claim.
> 
> Rejecting AI content in contributions is objective and measurable
> since you can't attest the DCO clearly with this content.

I think Carlos is on the right track here.  Consider the (apparent) fact
that it's getting difficult these days to undertake machine-assisted
natural-language translation _without_ some kind of LLM-based machine
working, possibly without disclosure to the user.  This is, as I
understand it, because LLMs are actually pretty good at this.[1]

Think, then, of how that affects contributors who are not native English
speakers.

And if the LLMs keep any native German speakers from contributing
verbiage of the form "X allows to Y", then you'll retain _me_ as a
contributor because I won't have gouged my own eyeballs out.[2]  English
usage anoraks like myself are occasionally useful when preparing
technical documentation.  I hope.

> > +Description
> > +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> > +	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
> 
> This is OK, the forbiddance is on the created content.
> 
> > +	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> > +	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
> > +	code.
> 
> I object strongly to this paragraph.
> 
> It is the *opposite* of what Gentoo's policy intended.
> 
> This is policy over-reach into the lives of contributors.

I think Carlos is drawing a line in a good place.  By grounding policy
on the process of _production_ of content, rather than the process of
knowledge _reception_ by contributors (all of whom are imperfect) we
better avoid the pitfalls of hallucination in both natural and
artificial intellgences.

For an illuminating historical parallel, consider the fact that AT&T
once regarded the Unix operating system as a trade secret.[3]

Regards,
Branden

[1] https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/talking-ai-with-martin-wolf
[2] https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/85069/is-the-construction-it-allows-to-proper-english
[3] https://www.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2025-September/032496.html

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v4] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5176 bytes --]

Hi Branden,

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 11:56:24AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> At 2025-10-15T12:03:07-0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > > In v4, I've added a paragraph clarifying that AI assistive tools are
> > > also included in the bad.
> > 
> > Isn't this the *opposite* of Gentoo's policy and QEMU's policy?
> > 
> > We should base the contribution policy on things we can objectively
> > measure and claim.
> > 
> > Rejecting AI content in contributions is objective and measurable
> > since you can't attest the DCO clearly with this content.
> 
> I think Carlos is on the right track here.  Consider the (apparent) fact
> that it's getting difficult these days to undertake machine-assisted
> natural-language translation _without_ some kind of LLM-based machine
> working, possibly without disclosure to the user.  This is, as I
> understand it, because LLMs are actually pretty good at this.[1]
> 
> Think, then, of how that affects contributors who are not native English
> speakers.

I prefer that they use badly written English by a human, than
good-looking English written by an AI.

I'll repeat what I told Carlos yesterday:

	On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 08:16:24PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
	> > I explicitly want to disallow such uses.  I think using AI to lint code
	> > (documentation or C source code) is dangerous, as it puts trust in the
	> > AI system to find issues.  The AI system might trick you to accidentally
	> > introduce typos or bugs, or it could create a false sense of
	> > correctness or safety.
	>
	> We're getting into ethical territory here.
	>
	> What I put my trust in or not, is none of the project's business.

	I think what you put your trust in or not *is* our business.  I might not
	want to put my trust in someone who puts its trust in something that
	I consider dangerous for the quality of the project.

	> This includes a clear license, clear and unambiguous copyright,
	> and a level of quality and correctness that we review with human
	> reviewers?

	I think human reviewers are unable to review AI-generated content, no
	matter how good the human is.

	I'd consider AI-generated content to be as if produced by Jia Tan.
	I wouldn't want to be revieweing Jia Tan's code, as there's a chance
	that I'll miss something eventually.

	If someone trusts itself enough to review Jia Tan's code (or AI code),
	I'm going to not want to trust that person for contributing.
	If anyone was really capable to review such code without mistakes,
	that person would probably be capable of writing such good code by hand
	(or with the help of deterministic tools) in the first place, and
	faster, anyway.

The principle I'm following is: consider an AI as a fancy version of
a chat with Jia Tan.  Are you using the AI to walk?  Then it can't
possibly affect the quality of the contribution.  Are you using it to
translate something?  Then we should be worried.

> And if the LLMs keep any native German speakers from contributing
> verbiage of the form "X allows to Y", then you'll retain _me_ as a
> contributor because I won't have gouged my own eyeballs out.[2]  English
> usage anoraks like myself are occasionally useful when preparing
> technical documentation.  I hope.
> 
> > > +Description
> > > +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> > > +	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
> > 
> > This is OK, the forbiddance is on the created content.
> > 
> > > +	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> > > +	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
> > > +	code.
> > 
> > I object strongly to this paragraph.
> > 
> > It is the *opposite* of what Gentoo's policy intended.
> > 
> > This is policy over-reach into the lives of contributors.
> 
> I think Carlos is drawing a line in a good place.  By grounding policy
> on the process of _production_ of content, rather than the process of
> knowledge _reception_ by contributors (all of whom are imperfect) we
> better avoid the pitfalls of hallucination in both natural and
> artificial intellgences.

Let's consider again the case that AI is a fancy version of a chat with
Jia Tan.  Should we trust contributions where Jia Tan has influenced in
any way?  I strongly believe that we shouldn't.

I think of the three concerns (legal, quality, ethical), the first one
affects code produced directly by the tool, but quality concerns apply
as well to code influenced by the tool.  And obviously, the ethical
concerns apply to *any* use of AI.


Have a lovely night!
Alex

> For an illuminating historical parallel, consider the fact that AT&T
> once regarded the Unix operating system as a trade secret.[3]
> 
> Regards,
> Branden
> 
> [1] https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/talking-ai-with-martin-wolf
> [2] https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/85069/is-the-construction-it-allows-to-proper-english
> [3] https://www.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2025-September/032496.html



-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v4] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[G. Branden Robinson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5118 bytes --]

Hi Alex,

At 2025-10-15T20:11:10+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> I prefer that they use badly written English by a human, than
> good-looking English written by an AI.

That's a tolerable and defensible position, but it is not the element of
your policy that is drawing pushback from Carlos, Sam, or me.

(...assuming I'm understanding Carlos and Sam correctly--as always I can
speak only for myself.)

> The principle I'm following is: consider an AI as a fancy version of
> a chat with Jia Tan.
[snip]
> Are you using the AI to walk?  Then it can't possibly affect the
> quality of the contribution.  Are you using it to translate something?
[snip]
> > I think Carlos is drawing a line in a good place.  By grounding
> > policy on the process of _production_ of content, rather than the
> > process of knowledge _reception_ by contributors (all of whom are
> > imperfect) we better avoid the pitfalls of hallucination in both
> > natural and artificial intellgences.
> 
> Let's consider again the case that AI is a fancy version of a chat
> with Jia Tan.  Should we trust contributions where Jia Tan has
> influenced in any way?  I strongly believe that we shouldn't.

I don't think the Jia Tan scenario is a useful litmus test.

Jia Tan was presumably a state actor, maybe FSB/SVR, DIA/NSA, or MSS.

Another possibility is that Jia Tan was the agent of a huge metanational
corporation,[0] like those characterized by the erstwhile FAANG
acronyms.

Yet another is that Jia Tan was a front for a highly motivated
individual or small group, possibly a criminal enterprise in the
ransomware business.

All of these possible identities have in common a protection from civil
and possibly even criminal penalties for breach of contract or
fraudulent attestation of any warranty or guarantee or ask of them.
Criminal enterprises with sufficient resources routinely buy impunity
for their crimes and tortious offenses against the public.[1][2][3][4]

Nothing that "Signed-off-by:" implies is binding upon Jia Tan.  Not in
any practically enforceable sense.

The Jia Tans of the world can and will lie to all of us, and the Linux
man-pages project will be wholly unable to hold them to account.

> I think of the three concerns (legal, quality, ethical), the first one
> affects code produced directly by the tool, but quality concerns apply
> as well to code influenced by the tool.  And obviously, the ethical
> concerns apply to *any* use of AI.

Richard Stallman, too, attempts to persuade software developers of the
world to adopt his ethics.[5]  To what extent do you think he succeeds?

That's not a rhetorical question; projects that employ copyleft licenses
foreclose contributions from people who hold that BSD-style licenses, or
dedication to the public domain, are "the only true free[dom]".[6]

I don't suggest that you shouldn't hold the views that you do, or even
that you shouldn't express them in material that Linux man-pages
contributors are likely to see.  I _am_ saying that there seem to be
some accessibility applications of "AI" that are beneficial to some
potential contributors (and maybe some already existing), specifically
in the case of machine translation of existing English in the Linux
man-pages _to_ a person's native language so that they can better
understand the system documented, and subsequently contribute revisions
and additions to the project's pages, in English, from the metaphorical
sweat only of their own brow (meaning: without "AI assistance"), that
may be inexpertly composed but that other contributors like you and me
can wordsmith to a satisfactory level.

In a game-theoretic sense, when you devise a social contract, you should
do so in anticipation that your counterparties are those you can expect
to earnestly, if not necessarily perfectly, abide by it.  They are
"cooperators".  A social contract cannot constrain the actions of
"defectors" who abide by the contract, if at all, only to build up
reputation for the day they betray the community to their advantage.[7]

Even more broadly, this is the insight that informs Wilhoit's Law.[8]

Regards,
Branden

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy
[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-authorities-set-unveil-settlement-with-binance-source-2023-11-21/
[2] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/goldman-sachs-resolves-foreign-bribery-case-and-agrees-pay-over-29-billion
[3] https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2024/06/billionaire-michael-saylor-to-pay-40m-over-tax-fraud-charges-00161273
[4] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/meta-investors-zuckerberg-reach-settlement-end-8-billion-trial-over-facebook-2025-07-17/
[5] https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software
[6] https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/mailcap/run-mailcap.1.en.html

[7] The title is cringe, but the piece is useful nonetheless.
    https://tryingtruly.substack.com/p/how-generous-tit-for-tat-wins-at-life

[8] https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v4] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6805 bytes --]

Hi Branden,

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 02:24:22PM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2025-10-15T20:11:10+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > I prefer that they use badly written English by a human, than
> > good-looking English written by an AI.
> 
> That's a tolerable and defensible position, but it is not the element of
> your policy that is drawing pushback from Carlos, Sam, or me.
> 
> (...assuming I'm understanding Carlos and Sam correctly--as always I can
> speak only for myself.)
> 
> > The principle I'm following is: consider an AI as a fancy version of
> > a chat with Jia Tan.
> [snip]
> > Are you using the AI to walk?  Then it can't possibly affect the
> > quality of the contribution.  Are you using it to translate something?
> [snip]
> > > I think Carlos is drawing a line in a good place.  By grounding
> > > policy on the process of _production_ of content, rather than the
> > > process of knowledge _reception_ by contributors (all of whom are
> > > imperfect) we better avoid the pitfalls of hallucination in both
> > > natural and artificial intellgences.
> > 
> > Let's consider again the case that AI is a fancy version of a chat
> > with Jia Tan.  Should we trust contributions where Jia Tan has
> > influenced in any way?  I strongly believe that we shouldn't.
> 
> I don't think the Jia Tan scenario is a useful litmus test.
> 
> Jia Tan was presumably a state actor, maybe FSB/SVR, DIA/NSA, or MSS.
> 
> Another possibility is that Jia Tan was the agent of a huge metanational
> corporation,[0] like those characterized by the erstwhile FAANG
> acronyms.
> 
> Yet another is that Jia Tan was a front for a highly motivated
> individual or small group, possibly a criminal enterprise in the
> ransomware business.
> 
> All of these possible identities have in common a protection from civil
> and possibly even criminal penalties for breach of contract or
> fraudulent attestation of any warranty or guarantee or ask of them.
> Criminal enterprises with sufficient resources routinely buy impunity
> for their crimes and tortious offenses against the public.[1][2][3][4]
> 
> Nothing that "Signed-off-by:" implies is binding upon Jia Tan.  Not in
> any practically enforceable sense.
>
> The Jia Tans of the world can and will lie to all of us, and the Linux
> man-pages project will be wholly unable to hold them to account.

What I mean by saying that we should consider AI as a black box
containing Jia Tan is that we don't know when it will lie to us, in ways
that look as plausible as possible, so that no reasonable human reviewer
would catch the problem.  Just like Jia was able to sneak its weapon
with very small "typos" in the build system.

Of course, there's a difference, in that Jia Tan did it on purpose and
(likely) had virtually unlimited resources, while an AI will (likely) do
it by accident.

But the output of AI is, so far, unpredictable, in the sense that we
can't know where it will fail, just like we can't expect where Jia will
try to trick us.  With humans, it's relatively possible to expect where
they'll make mistakes, as long as they're acting on good faith.  That's
why reviewing output from AI is as hard as reviewing output from Jia.

Introducing a vulnerability because you were tricked by a someone
malicious or by a random generator doesn't matter.  What matters is
introducing the vulnerability.

> > I think of the three concerns (legal, quality, ethical), the first one
> > affects code produced directly by the tool, but quality concerns apply
> > as well to code influenced by the tool.  And obviously, the ethical
> > concerns apply to *any* use of AI.
> 
> Richard Stallman, too, attempts to persuade software developers of the
> world to adopt his ethics.[5]  To what extent do you think he succeeds?
> 
> That's not a rhetorical question; projects that employ copyleft licenses
> foreclose contributions from people who hold that BSD-style licenses, or
> dedication to the public domain, are "the only true free[dom]".[6]
> 
> I don't suggest that you shouldn't hold the views that you do, or even
> that you shouldn't express them in material that Linux man-pages
> contributors are likely to see.  I _am_ saying that there seem to be
> some accessibility applications of "AI" that are beneficial to some
> potential contributors (and maybe some already existing), specifically
> in the case of machine translation of existing English in the Linux
> man-pages _to_ a person's native language so that they can better
> understand the system documented, and subsequently contribute revisions
> and additions to the project's pages, in English, from the metaphorical
> sweat only of their own brow (meaning: without "AI assistance"), that
> may be inexpertly composed but that other contributors like you and me
> can wordsmith to a satisfactory level.

What if an incorrect translation leads that contributor to misunderstand
reality in a way that results in a vulnerability being introduced?

> In a game-theoretic sense, when you devise a social contract, you should
> do so in anticipation that your counterparties are those you can expect
> to earnestly, if not necessarily perfectly, abide by it.  They are
> "cooperators".  A social contract cannot constrain the actions of
> "defectors" who abide by the contract, if at all, only to build up
> reputation for the day they betray the community to their advantage.[7]
> 
> Even more broadly, this is the insight that informs Wilhoit's Law.[8]

I trust the people to act on good faith.  But someone acting on good
faith, with garbage input, will likely result in garbage output.  GI-GO.


Cheers,
Alex

> 
> Regards,
> Branden
> 
> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy
> [1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-authorities-set-unveil-settlement-with-binance-source-2023-11-21/
> [2] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/goldman-sachs-resolves-foreign-bribery-case-and-agrees-pay-over-29-billion
> [3] https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2024/06/billionaire-michael-saylor-to-pay-40m-over-tax-fraud-charges-00161273
> [4] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/meta-investors-zuckerberg-reach-settlement-end-8-billion-trial-over-facebook-2025-07-17/
> [5] https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software
> [6] https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/mailcap/run-mailcap.1.en.html
> 
> [7] The title is cringe, but the piece is useful nonetheless.
>     https://tryingtruly.substack.com/p/how-generous-tit-for-tat-wins-at-life
> 
> [8] https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288



-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v4] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/15/25 3:24 PM, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> At 2025-10-15T20:11:10+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>> I prefer that they use badly written English by a human, than
>> good-looking English written by an AI.
> 
> That's a tolerable and defensible position, but it is not the element of
> your policy that is drawing pushback from Carlos, Sam, or me.
> 
> (...assuming I'm understanding Carlos and Sam correctly--as always I can
> speak only for myself.)

I believe, given what you've written, that you have understood my objections
correctly.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH v4] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/15/25 3:24 PM, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>> Let's consider again the case that AI is a fancy version of a chat
>> with Jia Tan.  Should we trust contributions where Jia Tan has
>> influenced in any way?  I strongly believe that we shouldn't.
> 
> I don't think the Jia Tan scenario is a useful litmus test.

Agreed.

The attack vector of "indirect influence" is very hard to both carry
out and successfully exploit.

One mitigation is to ask for at least one different human reviewer.
That person reads the change and understands what it does and the
intent behind the change.

As Collin and Sam can attest that's what we're doing in glibc with our
consensus and Reviewed-by: policy (and cost of compliance applies [1]
since we're stalling at ~60% review of all changes).

Even then an indirect influence attack could cause us to accept a
seemingly innocuous change in behaviour within the norms of the standard
that impacts a downstream application that is actually the attack target.

The only defense against this is the continuous integration efforts by
various distributions to place brand new component builds continuously
into testing in the hopes that one of them exercises the same API in
the same non-conforming way e.g. Hyrum's law [2] but applied to testing.

Then we get a report and fix the issue quickly.

The solution is more humans, trust, and relationship building.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

[1] Maxim: Cost of compliance approaches infinity as compliance approaches 100%.
[2] https://www.hyrumslaw.com/

Re: [PATCH v4] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2282 bytes --]

Hi Carlos,

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 12:03:07PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > In v4, I've added a paragraph clarifying that AI assistive tools are
> > also included in the bad.
> 
> Isn't this the *opposite* of Gentoo's policy and QEMU's policy?

It is the opposite of what Gentoo claims their policy says.  But it's
what my read of their policy says (and I'm not alone there, as the same
interpretation was mentioned in libc-alpha@).  They should clarify their
policy if they don't mean what it says.

> We should base the contribution policy on things we can objectively
> measure and claim.
> 
> Rejecting AI content in contributions is objective and measurable
> since you can't attest the DCO clearly with this content.

Rejecting AI content would follow the first concern, but the second and
third concerns would be entirely ignored by a policy that permits AI
static analyzers.

> > diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000..faab2df1b
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> > @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
> > +Name
> > +	AI - artificial intelligence policy
> > +
> > +Description
> > +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> > +	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
> 
> This is OK, the forbiddance is on the created content.

	"created *with the assistance* of AI tools"

If I write some code, and iterate over it by passing it through static
analyzers and editing as appropriate, I'd say the code has been created
with the assistance of those tools.

Let's consider this example from The Lord of the Rings.  Did Celebrimbor
create the three Elven rings with assistance of Sauron?  Sauron did not
produce the rings, but it influenced the author enough to introduce
vulnerabilities in the rings.

> > +
> > +	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> > +	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
> > +	code.
> 
> I object strongly to this paragraph.
> 
> It is the *opposite* of what Gentoo's policy intended.
> 
> This is policy over-reach into the lives of contributors.


Cheers,
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v4] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Sam James]

Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:

> Hi Carlos,
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 12:03:07PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> > In v4, I've added a paragraph clarifying that AI assistive tools are
>> > also included in the bad.
>> 
>> Isn't this the *opposite* of Gentoo's policy and QEMU's policy?
>
> It is the opposite of what Gentoo claims their policy says.  But it's
> what my read of their policy says (and I'm not alone there, as the same
> interpretation was mentioned in libc-alpha@).  They should clarify their
> policy if they don't mean what it says.

I already said we plan on it. I thought that was pretty clear.

>
>> We should base the contribution policy on things we can objectively
>> measure and claim.
>> 
>> Rejecting AI content in contributions is objective and measurable
>> since you can't attest the DCO clearly with this content.
>
> Rejecting AI content would follow the first concern, but the second and
> third concerns would be entirely ignored by a policy that permits AI
> static analyzers.
>

It is hard in my mind to justify rejecting TTS or similar that may be
based on AI.

>> > diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
>> > new file mode 100644
>> > index 000000000..faab2df1b
>> > --- /dev/null
>> > +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
>> > +Name
>> > +	AI - artificial intelligence policy
>> > +
>> > +Description
>> > +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
>> > +	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
>> 
>> This is OK, the forbiddance is on the created content.
>
> 	"created *with the assistance* of AI tools"
>
> If I write some code, and iterate over it by passing it through static
> analyzers and editing as appropriate, I'd say the code has been created
> with the assistance of those tools.
>
> Let's consider this example from The Lord of the Rings.  Did Celebrimbor
> create the three Elven rings with assistance of Sauron?  Sauron did not
> produce the rings, but it influenced the author enough to introduce
> vulnerabilities in the rings.
>
>> > +
>> > +	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
>> > +	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
>> > +	code.
>> 
>> I object strongly to this paragraph.
>> 
>> It is the *opposite* of what Gentoo's policy intended.
>> 
>> This is policy over-reach into the lives of contributors.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Alex

Re: [PATCH v4] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1733 bytes --]

Hi Sam,

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 07:49:50PM +0100, Sam James wrote:
> >> We should base the contribution policy on things we can objectively
> >> measure and claim.
> >> 
> >> Rejecting AI content in contributions is objective and measurable
> >> since you can't attest the DCO clearly with this content.
> >
> > Rejecting AI content would follow the first concern, but the second and
> > third concerns would be entirely ignored by a policy that permits AI
> > static analyzers.
> >
> 
> It is hard in my mind to justify rejecting TTS or similar that may be
> based on AI.

The following is enough, IMO, as justification:

	Ethical concerns.
		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
		concerns.  Among them:

		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
		   use of energy, water, and other natural resources.
		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
		   service quality.
		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
		   efforts.

	Quality concerns.
		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.

		AI tools should be considered adversarial, as if they
		were a black box with Jia Tan inside them.


Cheers,
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v4] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2136 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 09:03:28PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Sam,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 07:49:50PM +0100, Sam James wrote:
> > >> We should base the contribution policy on things we can objectively
> > >> measure and claim.
> > >> 
> > >> Rejecting AI content in contributions is objective and measurable
> > >> since you can't attest the DCO clearly with this content.
> > >
> > > Rejecting AI content would follow the first concern, but the second and
> > > third concerns would be entirely ignored by a policy that permits AI
> > > static analyzers.
> > >
> > 
> > It is hard in my mind to justify rejecting TTS or similar that may be
> > based on AI.

BTW, I assume TTS means text-to-speech.  Please don't use abbreviations
not supported by wtf(1), or parenthesize their meaning in the first use.

> 
> The following is enough, IMO, as justification:
> 
> 	Ethical concerns.
> 		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
> 		concerns.  Among them:
> 
> 		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
> 		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
> 		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
> 		   use of energy, water, and other natural resources.
> 		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
> 		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
> 		   service quality.
> 		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
> 		   efforts.
> 
> 	Quality concerns.
> 		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
> 		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
> 		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
> 		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
> 		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
> 		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
> 
> 		AI tools should be considered adversarial, as if they
> 		were a black box with Jia Tan inside them.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Alex
> 
> -- 
> <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
> Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).



-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v4] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Sam James]

Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 09:03:28PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>> Hi Sam,
>> 
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 07:49:50PM +0100, Sam James wrote:
>> > >> We should base the contribution policy on things we can objectively
>> > >> measure and claim.
>> > >> 
>> > >> Rejecting AI content in contributions is objective and measurable
>> > >> since you can't attest the DCO clearly with this content.
>> > >
>> > > Rejecting AI content would follow the first concern, but the second and
>> > > third concerns would be entirely ignored by a policy that permits AI
>> > > static analyzers.
>> > >
>> > 
>> > It is hard in my mind to justify rejecting TTS or similar that may be
>> > based on AI.
>
> BTW, I assume TTS means text-to-speech.  Please don't use abbreviations
> not supported by wtf(1), or parenthesize their meaning in the first use.

I normally try to honour that. Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing
further at this time. I don't think the way you've suggested this
subproposal is constructive.

>
>> 
>> The following is enough, IMO, as justification:
>> 
>> 	Ethical concerns.
>> 		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
>> 		concerns.  Among them:
>> 
>> 		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
>> 		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
>> 		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
>> 		   use of energy, water, and other natural resources.
>> 		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
>> 		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
>> 		   service quality.
>> 		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
>> 		   efforts.
>> 
>> 	Quality concerns.
>> 		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
>> 		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
>> 		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
>> 		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
>> 		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
>> 		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
>> 
>> 		AI tools should be considered adversarial, as if they
>> 		were a black box with Jia Tan inside them.
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Alex
>> 
>> -- 
>> <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
>> Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

Re: [PATCH v4] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 700 bytes --]

Hi Sam,

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 08:11:47PM +0100, Sam James wrote:
> > BTW, I assume TTS means text-to-speech.  Please don't use abbreviations
> > not supported by wtf(1), or parenthesize their meaning in the first use.
> 
> I normally try to honour that. Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing
> further at this time. I don't think the way you've suggested this
> subproposal is constructive.

I'm sorry if my wording didn't feel constructive.  I too felt that was
possible before sending, and tried to come up with better wording, but
didn't come up with anything better.


Have a lovely night!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v4] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1490 bytes --]

Hi Carlos,

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 08:22:03PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > +	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> > > +	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
> > > +	code.
> > 
> > I object strongly to this paragraph.

I've been thinking tonight, and I'll agree to allow assistive tools for
health reasons.  While I don't like them, I understand contributors
might not be in a position where they can choose.  We can add this
exception:

	diff --git i/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai w/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
	index e0e1d3469..0ec7b7802 100644
	--- i/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
	+++ w/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
	@@ -9,6 +9,12 @@ Description
		process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
		code.
	 
	+    Exceptions
	+       As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools on which the
	+       contributor depends for health reasons, and which don't have
	+       a major influence on the contribution, are allowed, and the
	+       contributor does not need to disclose their use.
	+
	     Concerns
		Copyright concerns.
			At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of

This would allow assistive tools for health reasons, as long as they
don't influence significantly on the contribution, but would still
disallow other assistive tools such as static analyzers.

Does this sound good to you?


Have a lovely day!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[PATCH v5] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
However, I've modified our text to be more restrictive.

Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
Cc: "G. Branden Robinson" <branden@debian.org>
Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
---
 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..269d62d48
--- /dev/null
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+Name
+	AI - artificial intelligence policy
+
+Description
+	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
+	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
+
+	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
+	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
+	code.
+
+    Exceptions
+	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools on which the
+	contributor depends for health reasons, and which don't have
+	a major influence on the contribution, are allowed, and the
+	contributor does not need to disclose their use.
+
+    Concerns
+	Copyright concerns.
+		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
+		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
+		such material could pose a danger of copyright
+		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
+		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
+
+	Quality concerns.
+		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
+		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
+		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
+		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
+		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
+		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
+
+		AI tools should be considered adversarial, as if they
+		were a black box with Jia Tan inside them.
+
+	Ethical concerns.
+		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
+		concerns.  Among them:
+
+		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
+		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
+		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
+		   use of energy, water, and other natural resources.
+		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
+		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
+		   service quality.
+		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
+		   efforts.
+
+Caveats
+	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
+	a tool that does not pose copyright, ethical, and quality
+	concerns.
+
+Copyright
+	Text derived from (and more restrictive than) the Gentoo project
+	AI policy
+	<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
+
+	SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
+
+See also
+	<https://tukaani.org/xz-backdoor/>
+	<https://xcancel.com/spendergrsec/status/1958264076162998771>

base-commit: cef39ff51bfd016d7079baefbf2a39f0fed7549b
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH v5] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/16/25 12:41 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
> However, I've modified our text to be more restrictive.

Looking forward to a v6.

> Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
> Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
> Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
> Cc: "G. Branden Robinson" <branden@debian.org>
> Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> ---
>   CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 65 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> 
> diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..269d62d48
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
> +Name
> +	AI - artificial intelligence policy
> +
> +Description
> +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> +	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
> +
> +	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> +	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
> +	code.
> +
> +    Exceptions
> +	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools on which the
> +	contributor depends for health reasons, and which don't have

May we please rephrase as follows:
~~~
As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools which don't have a
major influence on the contribution e.g. screen reader, text to speech
where the contributor verifies output, are allowed, and the
contributor need not disclose their use.
~~~

You can be perfectly healthy and lack hands, eyes, or other body parts.

> +	a major influence on the contribution, are allowed, and the
> +	contributor does not need to disclose their use.
> +
> +    Concerns
> +	Copyright concerns.
> +		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
> +		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
> +		such material could pose a danger of copyright
> +		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
> +		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
> +
> +	Quality concerns.
> +		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
> +		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
> +		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
> +		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
> +		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
> +		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
> +
> +		AI tools should be considered adversarial, as if they
> +		were a black box with Jia Tan inside them.
> +
> +	Ethical concerns.
> +		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
> +		concerns.  Among them:
> +
> +		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
> +		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
> +		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
> +		   use of energy, water, and other natural resources.
> +		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
> +		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
> +		   service quality.
> +		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
> +		   efforts.
> +
> +Caveats
> +	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
> +	a tool that does not pose copyright, ethical, and quality
> +	concerns.
> +
> +Copyright
> +	Text derived from (and more restrictive than) the Gentoo project
> +	AI policy
> +	<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
> +
> +	SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
> +
> +See also
> +	<https://tukaani.org/xz-backdoor/>
> +	<https://xcancel.com/spendergrsec/status/1958264076162998771>
> 
> base-commit: cef39ff51bfd016d7079baefbf2a39f0fed7549b


-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH v5] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1547 bytes --]

Hi Carlos,

On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 02:25:42PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 10/16/25 12:41 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
> > However, I've modified our text to be more restrictive.
> 
> Looking forward to a v6.

Sure!  Thanks for reviewing!

> > @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
> > +Name
> > +	AI - artificial intelligence policy
> > +
> > +Description
> > +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> > +	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
> > +
> > +	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> > +	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
> > +	code.
> > +
> > +    Exceptions
> > +	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools on which the
> > +	contributor depends for health reasons, and which don't have
> 
> May we please rephrase as follows:
> ~~~
> As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools which don't have a
> major influence on the contribution e.g. screen reader, text to speech
> where the contributor verifies output, are allowed, and the
> contributor need not disclose their use.
> ~~~

Yup, that sounds comfortable.

> 
> You can be perfectly healthy and lack hands, eyes, or other body parts.

Agree.

> > +	a major influence on the contribution, are allowed, and the
> > +	contributor does not need to disclose their use.


Have a lovely day!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[PATCH v6] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
However, I've modified our text to be more restrictive.

Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
Cc: "G. Branden Robinson" <branden@debian.org>
Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
---
 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..63cf3d548
--- /dev/null
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+Name
+	AI - artificial intelligence policy
+
+Description
+	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
+	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
+
+	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
+	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
+	code.  For example, AI linters and AI static analyzers are
+	forbidden.
+
+    Exceptions
+	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools which don't
+	have any influence on the contribution other than enabling the
+	contributor to work with its computer (e.g., screen reader,
+	text to speech) --where the contributor verifies the output to
+	the best of its ability-- are allowed, and the contributor need
+	not disclose their use.
+
+    Concerns
+	Copyright concerns.
+		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
+		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
+		such material could pose a danger of copyright
+		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
+		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
+
+	Quality concerns.
+		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
+		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
+		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
+		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
+		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
+		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
+
+		AI tools should be considered adversarial, as if they
+		were a black box with Jia Tan inside them.
+
+	Ethical concerns.
+		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
+		concerns.  Among them:
+
+		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
+		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
+		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
+		   use of energy, water, and other natural resources.
+		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
+		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
+		   service quality.
+		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
+		   efforts.
+
+Caveats
+	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
+	a tool that does not pose copyright, ethical, and quality
+	concerns.
+
+Copyright
+	Text derived from (and more restrictive than) the Gentoo project
+	AI policy
+	<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
+
+	SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
+
+See also
+	<https://tukaani.org/xz-backdoor/>
+	<https://xcancel.com/spendergrsec/status/1958264076162998771>

base-commit: cef39ff51bfd016d7079baefbf2a39f0fed7549b
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH v6] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/27/25 1:29 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
> However, I've modified our text to be more restrictive.

Looking forward to a v7.

> Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
> Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
> Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
> Cc: "G. Branden Robinson" <branden@debian.org>
> Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> ---
>   CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> 
> diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..63cf3d548
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> +Name
> +	AI - artificial intelligence policy
> +
> +Description
> +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> +	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
> +
> +	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> +	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
> +	code.  For example, AI linters and AI static analyzers are
> +	forbidden.

In an attempt to simplify the policy I suggest dropping the second
paragraph.

Leaving just:
~~~
Description
	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
~~~

If someone uses a linter or static analyzer *and* includes suggestions
directly then that is content that is AI generated and not permitted
(covered by the first paragraph).

The second paragraph admits odd interpretations including questions
like:

  * If I used AI to summarize a page for my own understanding, am I
    forever tainted by that use and unable to contribute?

  * If I used AI to translate a page to my native language and then
    used that knowledge to support my changes in the future, am I
    forever tainted by that use and unable to contribute?

The understanding of "contributing process" can be understood to span
years, decades even, and as such complicates the policy.

In conclusion, I suggest a simplified policy that doesn't impose such
language on the contributor.

> +
> +    Exceptions
> +	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools which don't
> +	have any influence on the contribution other than enabling the
> +	contributor to work with its computer (e.g., screen reader,

s/its/their/g

> +	text to speech) --where the contributor verifies the output to
> +	the best of its ability-- are allowed, and the contributor need

s/its/their/g

Do we have policy on a neutral term e.g. their?

> +	not disclose their use.

+1 from me here, the exceptions paragraph meets my notion of inclusive
use of the technology.

> +    Concerns
> +	Copyright concerns.
> +		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
> +		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
> +		such material could pose a danger of copyright
> +		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
> +		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
> +
> +	Quality concerns.
> +		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
> +		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
> +		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
> +		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
> +		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
> +		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
> +
> +		AI tools should be considered adversarial, as if they
> +		were a black box with Jia Tan inside them.

Suggest dropping the second paragraph.

The policy should stand clearly without oblique references to issues of
the times.

The paragraph detracts from the clearly written concern causing the
reader to have to go read the reference material and determine how it
relates to the policy.

> +
> +	Ethical concerns.
> +		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
> +		concerns.  Among them:
> +
> +		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
> +		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
> +		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
> +		   use of energy, water, and other natural resources.
> +		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
> +		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
> +		   service quality.
> +		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
> +		   efforts.
> +
> +Caveats
> +	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
> +	a tool that does not pose copyright, ethical, and quality
> +	concerns.

Suggest "copyright, quality, or ethical concerns" to match order in the
text above.

> +
> +Copyright
> +	Text derived from (and more restrictive than) the Gentoo project

Drop "(and more restrictive than)" since you have the same license as
the original text.

If you want to keep something here I suggest:

"Text is derived from, but different than, the Gentoo Project AI Policy"

The notion of more or less restrictive is relative.

> +	AI policy
> +	<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
> +
> +	SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
> +
> +See also
> +	<https://tukaani.org/xz-backdoor/>
> +	<https://xcancel.com/spendergrsec/status/1958264076162998771>
> 
> base-commit: cef39ff51bfd016d7079baefbf2a39f0fed7549b


-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH v6] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7746 bytes --]

Hi Carlos, Sam,

On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 08:31:40AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 10/27/25 1:29 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
> > However, I've modified our text to be more restrictive.
> 
> Looking forward to a v7.
> 
> > Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
> > Cc: "G. Branden Robinson" <branden@debian.org>
> > Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
> > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >   CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)
> >   create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> > 
> > diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000..63cf3d548
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> > +Name
> > +	AI - artificial intelligence policy
> > +
> > +Description
> > +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> > +	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
> > +
> > +	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> > +	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
> > +	code.  For example, AI linters and AI static analyzers are
> > +	forbidden.
> 
> In an attempt to simplify the policy I suggest dropping the second
> paragraph.
> 
> Leaving just:
> ~~~
> Description
> 	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> 	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
> ~~~
> 
> If someone uses a linter or static analyzer *and* includes suggestions
> directly then that is content that is AI generated and not permitted
> (covered by the first paragraph).
> 
> The second paragraph admits odd interpretations including questions
> like:
> 
>  * If I used AI to summarize a page for my own understanding, am I
>    forever tainted by that use and unable to contribute?

I wouldn't say forever, but I certainly don't want you to use that
information in your contributions.  As I discussed in an LWN thread,
you may be spammed by AI tools (e.g., your browser or IDE or whatever
may show you suggestions), but as long as you actively discard that
information in your brain, I'm okay with that.

If you say something like "I accidentally saw something from AI, but
I promise I didn't use that information", I'm okay with your
contributions.

Similarly, if you've ever contributed to GCC, are you able to contribute
to Clang?  How much is our brain tainted by GPL?  As long as you
actively discard the knowledge of GCC internals that would result in
copying copyrighted code, I think it's fine to contribute to both.

>  * If I used AI to translate a page to my native language and then
>    used that knowledge to support my changes in the future, am I
>    forever tainted by that use and unable to contribute?

Same here.  I would like you to try to forget such information, and
regain it without AI.

> The understanding of "contributing process" can be understood to span
> years, decades even, and as such complicates the policy.
> 
> In conclusion, I suggest a simplified policy that doesn't impose such
> language on the contributor.

I'm not sure about that, as then it could be interpreted as not
prohibiting using linters (it would essentially be the same wording as
Gentoo's policy, which some interpret to allow AI linters), which I want
to prohibit.

Maybe we could add something clarifying that as long as you don't use
the information at all (maybe because you're spammed by your web
browser, or your IDE, but you're able to ignore it), that's okay-ish.

> > +
> > +    Exceptions
> > +	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools which don't
> > +	have any influence on the contribution other than enabling the
> > +	contributor to work with its computer (e.g., screen reader,
> 
> s/its/their/g
> 
> > +	text to speech) --where the contributor verifies the output to
> > +	the best of its ability-- are allowed, and the contributor need
> 
> s/its/their/g

Thanks!  I thought it was a valid gender-neutral singular pronoun, but
I now see in a web search that it has some less-than-human implication.
I'll change it to their.

> Do we have policy on a neutral term e.g. their?

We don't.

> > +	not disclose their use.
> 
> +1 from me here, the exceptions paragraph meets my notion of inclusive
> use of the technology.
> 
> > +    Concerns
> > +	Copyright concerns.
> > +		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
> > +		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
> > +		such material could pose a danger of copyright
> > +		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
> > +		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
> > +
> > +	Quality concerns.
> > +		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
> > +		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
> > +		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
> > +		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
> > +		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
> > +		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
> > +
> > +		AI tools should be considered adversarial, as if they
> > +		were a black box with Jia Tan inside them.
> 
> Suggest dropping the second paragraph.
> 
> The policy should stand clearly without oblique references to issues of
> the times.
> 
> The paragraph detracts from the clearly written concern causing the
> reader to have to go read the reference material and determine how it
> relates to the policy.

Okay.

> > +
> > +	Ethical concerns.
> > +		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
> > +		concerns.  Among them:
> > +
> > +		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
> > +		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
> > +		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
> > +		   use of energy, water, and other natural resources.
> > +		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
> > +		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
> > +		   service quality.
> > +		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
> > +		   efforts.
> > +
> > +Caveats
> > +	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
> > +	a tool that does not pose copyright, ethical, and quality
> > +	concerns.
> 
> Suggest "copyright, quality, or ethical concerns" to match order in the
> text above.

Yup, I noticed that.  I wanted to reduce divergence from Gentoo's
policy, but I agree it's better to be consistent here.

Sam, I suggest that Gentoo revises the order there too.

> > +
> > +Copyright
> > +	Text derived from (and more restrictive than) the Gentoo project
> 
> Drop "(and more restrictive than)" since you have the same license as
> the original text.
> 
> If you want to keep something here I suggest:
> 
> "Text is derived from, but different than, the Gentoo Project AI Policy"
> 
> The notion of more or less restrictive is relative.

Okay.


Have a lovely day!
Alex

> 
> > +	AI policy
> > +	<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
> > +
> > +	SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
> > +
> > +See also
> > +	<https://tukaani.org/xz-backdoor/>
> > +	<https://xcancel.com/spendergrsec/status/1958264076162998771>
> > 
> > base-commit: cef39ff51bfd016d7079baefbf2a39f0fed7549b
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Carlos.
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[PATCH v7] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
However, I've modified our text to be more restrictive.

Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
Cc: "G. Branden Robinson" <branden@debian.org>
Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
---
 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..95784872a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+Name
+	AI - artificial intelligence policy
+
+Description
+	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
+	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
+
+	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
+	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
+	code.  For example, AI linters and AI static analyzers are
+	forbidden.
+
+	If for some reason, a contributor receives information from an
+	AI tool unintentionally, it should actively try to not use that
+	information, and should also disclose the incident when
+	contributing.
+
+    Exceptions
+	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools which don't
+	have any influence on the contribution other than enabling the
+	contributor to work with their computer (e.g., screen reader,
+	text to speech) --where the contributor verifies the output to
+	the best of their ability-- are allowed, and the contributor
+	need not disclose their use.
+
+    Concerns
+	Copyright concerns.
+		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
+		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
+		such material could pose a danger of copyright
+		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
+		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
+
+	Quality concerns.
+		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
+		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
+		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
+		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
+		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
+		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
+
+	Ethical concerns.
+		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
+		concerns.  Among them:
+
+		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
+		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
+		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
+		   use of energy, water, and other natural resources.
+		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
+		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
+		   service quality.
+		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
+		   efforts.
+
+Caveats
+	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
+	a tool that does not pose copyright, quality, or ethical
+	concerns.
+
+Copyright
+	Text derived from --but different than-- the Gentoo project
+	AI policy
+	<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
+
+	SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0

base-commit: cef39ff51bfd016d7079baefbf2a39f0fed7549b
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH v7] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3762 bytes --]

Hi Carlos,

On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 02:21:04PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
> However, I've modified our text to be more restrictive.
> 
> Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
> Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
> Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
> Cc: "G. Branden Robinson" <branden@debian.org>
> Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> ---

Are you okay with v7?


Have a lovely day!
Alex

>  CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 66 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> 
> diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..95784872a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
> +Name
> +	AI - artificial intelligence policy
> +
> +Description
> +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> +	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
> +
> +	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> +	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
> +	code.  For example, AI linters and AI static analyzers are
> +	forbidden.
> +
> +	If for some reason, a contributor receives information from an
> +	AI tool unintentionally, it should actively try to not use that
> +	information, and should also disclose the incident when
> +	contributing.
> +
> +    Exceptions
> +	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools which don't
> +	have any influence on the contribution other than enabling the
> +	contributor to work with their computer (e.g., screen reader,
> +	text to speech) --where the contributor verifies the output to
> +	the best of their ability-- are allowed, and the contributor
> +	need not disclose their use.
> +
> +    Concerns
> +	Copyright concerns.
> +		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
> +		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
> +		such material could pose a danger of copyright
> +		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
> +		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
> +
> +	Quality concerns.
> +		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
> +		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
> +		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
> +		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
> +		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
> +		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
> +
> +	Ethical concerns.
> +		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
> +		concerns.  Among them:
> +
> +		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
> +		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
> +		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
> +		   use of energy, water, and other natural resources.
> +		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
> +		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
> +		   service quality.
> +		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
> +		   efforts.
> +
> +Caveats
> +	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
> +	a tool that does not pose copyright, quality, or ethical
> +	concerns.
> +
> +Copyright
> +	Text derived from --but different than-- the Gentoo project
> +	AI policy
> +	<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
> +
> +	SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
> 
> base-commit: cef39ff51bfd016d7079baefbf2a39f0fed7549b
> -- 
> 2.51.0
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[PATCH v8] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
However, I've modified our text to be more restrictive.

Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
Cc: "G. Branden Robinson" <branden@debian.org>
Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
---
 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..8443bbcc0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+Name
+	AI - artificial intelligence policy
+
+Description
+	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
+	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
+
+	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
+	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
+	code.  For example, AI linters, AI static analyzers, and AI
+	tools that summarize input are forbidden.
+
+	If for some reason, a contributor receives information from an
+	AI tool unintentionally, it should actively try to not use that
+	information, and should also disclose the incident when
+	contributing.
+
+    Exceptions
+	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools which don't
+	have any influence on the contribution other than enabling the
+	contributor to work with their computer (e.g., screen reader,
+	text to speech) --where the contributor verifies the output to
+	the best of their ability-- are allowed, and the contributor
+	need not disclose their use.
+
+    Concerns
+	Copyright concerns.
+		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
+		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
+		such material could pose a danger of copyright
+		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
+		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
+
+	Quality concerns.
+		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
+		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
+		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
+		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
+		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
+		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
+
+	Ethical concerns.
+		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
+		concerns.  Among them:
+
+		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
+		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
+		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
+		   use of energy, water, and other natural resources.
+		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
+		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
+		   service quality.
+		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
+		   efforts.
+
+Caveats
+	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
+	a tool that does not pose copyright, quality, or ethical
+	concerns.
+
+Copyright
+	Text derived from --but different than-- the Gentoo project
+	AI policy
+	<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
+
+	SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0

Range-diff against v7:
1:  299541d41 ! 1:  b40a7c44c CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing
    @@ CONTRIBUTING.d/ai (new)
     +
     +	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
     +	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
    -+	code.  For example, AI linters and AI static analyzers are
    -+	forbidden.
    ++	code.  For example, AI linters, AI static analyzers, and AI
    ++	tools that summarize input are forbidden.
     +
     +	If for some reason, a contributor receives information from an
     +	AI tool unintentionally, it should actively try to not use that

base-commit: afdd0a64c5bad49d6030ddc488951aeb50f0b88e
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH v8] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 11/10/25 7:01 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
> However, I've modified our text to be more restrictive.
> 
> Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
> Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
> Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
> Cc: "G. Branden Robinson" <branden@debian.org>
> Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> ---
>   CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 66 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> 
> diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..8443bbcc0
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
> +Name
> +	AI - artificial intelligence policy
> +
> +Description
> +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> +	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.

This is fine.

The goal is not to accept contributions that can't be attested.

> +
> +	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> +	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
> +	code.  For example, AI linters, AI static analyzers, and AI
> +	tools that summarize input are forbidden.

This is acceptable.

It is another way of saying derived content is not acceptable either.

One suggestion is to fold "created or derived" into the first paragraph?

~~~
It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any content
that has been created or derived with the assistance of AI tools.

This includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing process,
even if such tools do not directly generate the contributed code but
are used to derive the contribution. For example, AI linters, AI static
analyzers, and AI tools that summarize input are forbidden
~~~

> +	If for some reason, a contributor receives information from an
> +	AI tool unintentionally, it should actively try to not use that
> +	information, and should also disclose the incident when
> +	contributing.

This paragraph is contradictory and vague.

If we forbid them from contributing such content, then we never get to
this paragraph?

The "receives information from an AI tool" is sufficiently vague that
it makes the policy unenforceable.

I suggest dropping this to make the policy shorter and clearer.

> +    Exceptions
> +	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools which don't
> +	have any influence on the contribution other than enabling the
> +	contributor to work with their computer (e.g., screen reader,
> +	text to speech) --where the contributor verifies the output to
> +	the best of their ability-- are allowed, and the contributor
> +	need not disclose their use.

Looks good.

> +
> +    Concerns
> +	Copyright concerns.
> +		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
> +		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
> +		such material could pose a danger of copyright
> +		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
> +		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
> +
> +	Quality concerns.
> +		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
> +		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
> +		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
> +		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
> +		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
> +		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
> +
> +	Ethical concerns.
> +		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
> +		concerns.  Among them:
> +
> +		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
> +		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
> +		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
> +		   use of energy, water, and other natural resources.
> +		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
> +		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
> +		   service quality.
> +		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
> +		   efforts.
> +
> +Caveats
> +	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
> +	a tool that does not pose copyright, quality, or ethical
> +	concerns.
> +
> +Copyright
> +	Text derived from --but different than-- the Gentoo project
> +	AI policy
> +	<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
> +
> +	SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0

OK.

> 
> Range-diff against v7:
> 1:  299541d41 ! 1:  b40a7c44c CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing
>      @@ CONTRIBUTING.d/ai (new)
>       +
>       +	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
>       +	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
>      -+	code.  For example, AI linters and AI static analyzers are
>      -+	forbidden.
>      ++	code.  For example, AI linters, AI static analyzers, and AI
>      ++	tools that summarize input are forbidden.
>       +
>       +	If for some reason, a contributor receives information from an
>       +	AI tool unintentionally, it should actively try to not use that
> 
> base-commit: afdd0a64c5bad49d6030ddc488951aeb50f0b88e


-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH v8] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5994 bytes --]

Hi Carlos,

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 08:31:49AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 11/10/25 7:01 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
> > However, I've modified our text to be more restrictive.
> > 
> > Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
> > Cc: "G. Branden Robinson" <branden@debian.org>
> > Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
> > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >   CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   1 file changed, 66 insertions(+)
> >   create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> > 
> > diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000..8443bbcc0
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> > @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
> > +Name
> > +	AI - artificial intelligence policy
> > +
> > +Description
> > +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> > +	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
> 
> This is fine.
> 
> The goal is not to accept contributions that can't be attested.
> 
> > +
> > +	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> > +	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
> > +	code.  For example, AI linters, AI static analyzers, and AI
> > +	tools that summarize input are forbidden.
> 
> This is acceptable.
> 
> It is another way of saying derived content is not acceptable either.
> 
> One suggestion is to fold "created or derived" into the first paragraph?
>
> ~~~
> It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any content
> that has been created or derived with the assistance of AI tools.
> 
> This includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing process,
> even if such tools do not directly generate the contributed code but
> are used to derive the contribution. For example, AI linters, AI static
> analyzers, and AI tools that summarize input are forbidden
> ~~~

LGTM.  Thanks!

> 
> > +	If for some reason, a contributor receives information from an
> > +	AI tool unintentionally, it should actively try to not use that
> > +	information, and should also disclose the incident when
> > +	contributing.
> 
> This paragraph is contradictory and vague.
> 
> If we forbid them from contributing such content, then we never get to
> this paragraph?

This paragraph was to cover your concerns of being tainted for life for
having even used such a tool.

> 
> The "receives information from an AI tool" is sufficiently vague that
> it makes the policy unenforceable.
> 
> I suggest dropping this to make the policy shorter and clearer.

I'm okay dropping this paragraph.

> > +    Exceptions
> > +	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools which don't
> > +	have any influence on the contribution other than enabling the
> > +	contributor to work with their computer (e.g., screen reader,
> > +	text to speech) --where the contributor verifies the output to
> > +	the best of their ability-- are allowed, and the contributor
> > +	need not disclose their use.
> 
> Looks good.
> 
> > +
> > +    Concerns
> > +	Copyright concerns.
> > +		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
> > +		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
> > +		such material could pose a danger of copyright
> > +		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
> > +		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
> > +
> > +	Quality concerns.
> > +		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
> > +		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
> > +		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
> > +		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
> > +		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
> > +		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
> > +
> > +	Ethical concerns.
> > +		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
> > +		concerns.  Among them:
> > +
> > +		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
> > +		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
> > +		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
> > +		   use of energy, water, and other natural resources.
> > +		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
> > +		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
> > +		   service quality.
> > +		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
> > +		   efforts.
> > +
> > +Caveats
> > +	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
> > +	a tool that does not pose copyright, quality, or ethical
> > +	concerns.
> > +
> > +Copyright
> > +	Text derived from --but different than-- the Gentoo project
> > +	AI policy
> > +	<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
> > +
> > +	SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
> 
> OK.

Thanks!


Have a lovely day!
Alex

> 
> > 
> > Range-diff against v7:
> > 1:  299541d41 ! 1:  b40a7c44c CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing
> >      @@ CONTRIBUTING.d/ai (new)
> >       +
> >       +	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> >       +	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
> >      -+	code.  For example, AI linters and AI static analyzers are
> >      -+	forbidden.
> >      ++	code.  For example, AI linters, AI static analyzers, and AI
> >      ++	tools that summarize input are forbidden.
> >       +
> >       +	If for some reason, a contributor receives information from an
> >       +	AI tool unintentionally, it should actively try to not use that
> > 
> > base-commit: afdd0a64c5bad49d6030ddc488951aeb50f0b88e
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Carlos.
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[PATCH v9] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
However, I've modified our text to be more restrictive.

Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
Cc: "G. Branden Robinson" <branden@debian.org>
Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
---
 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..91d767785
--- /dev/null
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+Name
+	AI - artificial intelligence policy
+
+Description
+	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
+	content that has been created or derived with the assistance of
+	AI tools.
+
+	This includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
+	process, even if such tools do not directly generate the
+	contributed code but are used to derive the contribution.  For
+	example, AI linters, AI static analyzers, and AI tools that
+	summarize input are forbidden.
+
+    Exceptions
+	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools which don't
+	have any influence on the contribution other than enabling the
+	contributor to work with their computer (e.g., screen reader,
+	text to speech) --where the contributor verifies the output to
+	the best of their ability-- are allowed, and the contributor
+	need not disclose their use.
+
+    Concerns
+	Copyright concerns.
+		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
+		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
+		such material could pose a danger of copyright
+		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
+		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
+
+	Quality concerns.
+		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
+		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
+		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
+		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
+		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
+		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
+
+	Ethical concerns.
+		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
+		concerns.  Among them:
+
+		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
+		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
+		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
+		   use of energy, water, and other natural resources.
+		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
+		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
+		   service quality.
+		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
+		   efforts.
+
+Caveats
+	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
+	a tool that does not pose copyright, quality, or ethical
+	concerns.
+
+Copyright
+	Text derived from --but different than-- the Gentoo project
+	AI policy
+	<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
+
+	SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0

Range-diff against v8:
1:  b40a7c44c ! 1:  999614b18 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing
    @@ CONTRIBUTING.d/ai (new)
     +
     +Description
     +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
    -+	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
    ++	content that has been created or derived with the assistance of
    ++	AI tools.
     +
    -+	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
    -+	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
    -+	code.  For example, AI linters, AI static analyzers, and AI
    -+	tools that summarize input are forbidden.
    -+
    -+	If for some reason, a contributor receives information from an
    -+	AI tool unintentionally, it should actively try to not use that
    -+	information, and should also disclose the incident when
    -+	contributing.
    ++	This includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
    ++	process, even if such tools do not directly generate the
    ++	contributed code but are used to derive the contribution.  For
    ++	example, AI linters, AI static analyzers, and AI tools that
    ++	summarize input are forbidden.
     +
     +    Exceptions
     +	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools which don't

base-commit: afdd0a64c5bad49d6030ddc488951aeb50f0b88e
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH v9] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 11/10/25 9:36 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
> However, I've modified our text to be more restrictive.
> 
> Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
> Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
> Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
> Cc: "G. Branden Robinson" <branden@debian.org>
> Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>

This exceptions language meets my criteria for inclusiveness.

The currently worded policy is a workable compromise.

Reviewed-by: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>

> ---
>   CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 63 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> 
> diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..91d767785
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
> +Name
> +	AI - artificial intelligence policy
> +
> +Description
> +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> +	content that has been created or derived with the assistance of
> +	AI tools.
> +

OK.

> +	This includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> +	process, even if such tools do not directly generate the
> +	contributed code but are used to derive the contribution.  For
> +	example, AI linters, AI static analyzers, and AI tools that
> +	summarize input are forbidden.

OK.

> +
> +    Exceptions
> +	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools which don't
> +	have any influence on the contribution other than enabling the
> +	contributor to work with their computer (e.g., screen reader,
> +	text to speech) --where the contributor verifies the output to
> +	the best of their ability-- are allowed, and the contributor
> +	need not disclose their use.

OK.

> +
> +    Concerns
> +	Copyright concerns.
> +		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
> +		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
> +		such material could pose a danger of copyright
> +		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
> +		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
> +
> +	Quality concerns.
> +		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
> +		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
> +		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
> +		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
> +		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
> +		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
> +
> +	Ethical concerns.
> +		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
> +		concerns.  Among them:
> +
> +		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
> +		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
> +		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
> +		   use of energy, water, and other natural resources.
> +		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
> +		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
> +		   service quality.
> +		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
> +		   efforts.
> +
> +Caveats
> +	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such

s/been/be/g

> +	a tool that does not pose copyright, quality, or ethical
> +	concerns.
> +
> +Copyright
> +	Text derived from --but different than-- the Gentoo project
> +	AI policy
> +	<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
> +
> +	SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
> 
> Range-diff against v8:
> 1:  b40a7c44c ! 1:  999614b18 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing
>      @@ CONTRIBUTING.d/ai (new)
>       +
>       +Description
>       +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
>      -+	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
>      ++	content that has been created or derived with the assistance of
>      ++	AI tools.
>       +
>      -+	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
>      -+	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
>      -+	code.  For example, AI linters, AI static analyzers, and AI
>      -+	tools that summarize input are forbidden.
>      -+
>      -+	If for some reason, a contributor receives information from an
>      -+	AI tool unintentionally, it should actively try to not use that
>      -+	information, and should also disclose the incident when
>      -+	contributing.
>      ++	This includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
>      ++	process, even if such tools do not directly generate the
>      ++	contributed code but are used to derive the contribution.  For
>      ++	example, AI linters, AI static analyzers, and AI tools that
>      ++	summarize input are forbidden.
>       +
>       +    Exceptions
>       +	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools which don't
> 
> base-commit: afdd0a64c5bad49d6030ddc488951aeb50f0b88e


-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH v9] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5654 bytes --]

Hi Carlos,

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 11:56:42AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 11/10/25 9:36 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > This policy is based on the Gentoo policy (see link below).
> > However, I've modified our text to be more restrictive.
> > 
> > Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
> > Cc: "G. Branden Robinson" <branden@debian.org>
> > Link: <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>
> > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> 
> This exceptions language meets my criteria for inclusiveness.
> 
> The currently worded policy is a workable compromise.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>

Thanks!  I've applied the patch with your tag, and the wording fix you
noted below.


Have a lovely night!
Alex

> 
> > ---
> >   CONTRIBUTING.d/ai | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   1 file changed, 63 insertions(+)
> >   create mode 100644 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> > 
> > diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000..91d767785
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
> > @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
> > +Name
> > +	AI - artificial intelligence policy
> > +
> > +Description
> > +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> > +	content that has been created or derived with the assistance of
> > +	AI tools.
> > +
> 
> OK.
> 
> > +	This includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> > +	process, even if such tools do not directly generate the
> > +	contributed code but are used to derive the contribution.  For
> > +	example, AI linters, AI static analyzers, and AI tools that
> > +	summarize input are forbidden.
> 
> OK.
> 
> > +
> > +    Exceptions
> > +	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools which don't
> > +	have any influence on the contribution other than enabling the
> > +	contributor to work with their computer (e.g., screen reader,
> > +	text to speech) --where the contributor verifies the output to
> > +	the best of their ability-- are allowed, and the contributor
> > +	need not disclose their use.
> 
> OK.
> 
> > +
> > +    Concerns
> > +	Copyright concerns.
> > +		At this point, the regulations concerning copyright of
> > +		generated contents are still emerging worldwide.  Using
> > +		such material could pose a danger of copyright
> > +		violations, but it could also weaken claims to copyright
> > +		and void the guarantees given by copyleft licensing.
> > +
> > +	Quality concerns.
> > +		Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly
> > +		looking, but meaningless content.  They pose both the
> > +		risk of lowering the quality of a project, and of
> > +		requiring an unfair human effort from contributors and
> > +		maintainers to review contributions and detect the
> > +		mistakes resulting from the use of AI.
> > +
> > +	Ethical concerns.
> > +		The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical
> > +		concerns.  Among them:
> > +
> > +		-  Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in
> > +		   blatant copyright violations to train their models.
> > +		-  Their operations are causing concerns about the huge
> > +		   use of energy, water, and other natural resources.
> > +		-  The advertising and use of AI models has caused
> > +		   a significant harm to employees and reduction of
> > +		   service quality.
> > +		-  LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam
> > +		   efforts.
> > +
> > +Caveats
> > +	This policy can be revisited, should a case been made over such
> 
> s/been/be/g
> 
> > +	a tool that does not pose copyright, quality, or ethical
> > +	concerns.
> > +
> > +Copyright
> > +	Text derived from --but different than-- the Gentoo project
> > +	AI policy
> > +	<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy>.
> > +
> > +	SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
> > 
> > Range-diff against v8:
> > 1:  b40a7c44c ! 1:  999614b18 CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing
> >      @@ CONTRIBUTING.d/ai (new)
> >       +
> >       +Description
> >       +	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
> >      -+	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.
> >      ++	content that has been created or derived with the assistance of
> >      ++	AI tools.
> >       +
> >      -+	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> >      -+	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
> >      -+	code.  For example, AI linters, AI static analyzers, and AI
> >      -+	tools that summarize input are forbidden.
> >      -+
> >      -+	If for some reason, a contributor receives information from an
> >      -+	AI tool unintentionally, it should actively try to not use that
> >      -+	information, and should also disclose the incident when
> >      -+	contributing.
> >      ++	This includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
> >      ++	process, even if such tools do not directly generate the
> >      ++	contributed code but are used to derive the contribution.  For
> >      ++	example, AI linters, AI static analyzers, and AI tools that
> >      ++	summarize input are forbidden.
> >       +
> >       +    Exceptions
> >       +	As an exception to the above, AI assistive tools which don't
> > 
> > base-commit: afdd0a64c5bad49d6030ddc488951aeb50f0b88e
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Carlos.
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Günther Noack]

Hello!

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:27:26PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> ---
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I've already been DDoSed in my own home server by AI crawlers (which is
> the reason I decided to move the HTTPS server to port 80, just to break
> links and stop the madness.  I could install Anubis, but I'll resist for
> some time.
> 
> So far, I haven't noticed any contributors using AI.  Probably, the
> combination of relatively few people contributing documentation,
> combined with still working on a mailing list, has helped us avoid the
> wave of AI contributions.
> 
> However, it's better to take preventive measures.  AI is entirely banned
> in this project.  The guidelines are clear and concise.

I know I'm late to the discussion, but for the record, I would like to
throw a scenario into the discussion that I consider a compelling use
case for AI-assisted man-page contributions.

As you know, the Landlock man page work mainly consists of taking the
existing kernel documentation text and putting it into the man page
form.  That means that when producing the man page patches, the main
additional work is:

(a) formatting existing text in groff
(b) adapting the structure to match the man page format
(c) copy-and-pasting wording fixes between kernel and man page tree
    (in either direction)

Because this is tedious and time-consuming, and because the added
value over the existing kernel documentation is low, Landlock's man
pages tend to lag behind the kernel documentation by many months.

Coding agents are very good at such reformatting tasks though, and
that would make it potentially feasible to keep this up to date much
faster.  (with the rough process being that you point a coding agent
to the man page and Linux source trees and ask it to carry the
documentation changes over in a way that respects existing man page
style and structure). [^1]

Since the submitted man page text is the same as on the kernel side,
the main work done by the agent here is in Groff formatting, and in
finding the text in the kernel tree and putting it into the right man
page structure.

For inspiration, the Linux kernel itself has, after substantial
discussion, recently started adopting a different policy, where
AI-generated contributions are permitted, but where it is still made
clear that human contributors must review all AI-generated code and
have the same responsibilities as for a normal human-authored patch:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst

I realize that the Landlock use case alone is maybe not enough to
change your stance on this, but I feel it's worth at least pointing
out that there are use cases with potential upsides.

I think that with a Linux-like policy for coding assistants, it would
be easier for us to keep the man pages up to date.

–Günther


Footnotes

[^1] An alternative that has been considered in the past was to create
     a mechanistic translation program to create the man pages from
     kernel .rst and .h files, but this also seems brittle and would
     mean that the man page structure would likely stay close to the
     kernel documentation in structure.  In my understanding, Linux's
     eBPF helpers use that approach.

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING.d/ai: Add guidelines banning AI for contributing

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3998 bytes --]

Hi Günther!

On 2026-03-29T15:42:03+0200, Günther Noack wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:27:26PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > 
> > Hi!
> > 
> > I've already been DDoSed in my own home server by AI crawlers (which is
> > the reason I decided to move the HTTPS server to port 80, just to break
> > links and stop the madness.  I could install Anubis, but I'll resist for
> > some time.
> > 
> > So far, I haven't noticed any contributors using AI.  Probably, the
> > combination of relatively few people contributing documentation,
> > combined with still working on a mailing list, has helped us avoid the
> > wave of AI contributions.
> > 
> > However, it's better to take preventive measures.  AI is entirely banned
> > in this project.  The guidelines are clear and concise.
> 
> I know I'm late to the discussion, but for the record, I would like to
> throw a scenario into the discussion that I consider a compelling use
> case for AI-assisted man-page contributions.
> 
> As you know, the Landlock man page work mainly consists of taking the
> existing kernel documentation text and putting it into the man page
> form.  That means that when producing the man page patches, the main
> additional work is:
> 
> (a) formatting existing text in groff
> (b) adapting the structure to match the man page format
> (c) copy-and-pasting wording fixes between kernel and man page tree
>     (in either direction)
> 
> Because this is tedious and time-consuming, and because the added
> value over the existing kernel documentation is low, Landlock's man
> pages tend to lag behind the kernel documentation by many months.
> 
> Coding agents are very good at such reformatting tasks though, and
> that would make it potentially feasible to keep this up to date much
> faster.  (with the rough process being that you point a coding agent
> to the man page and Linux source trees and ask it to carry the
> documentation changes over in a way that respects existing man page
> style and structure). [^1]
> 
> Since the submitted man page text is the same as on the kernel side,
> the main work done by the agent here is in Groff formatting, and in
> finding the text in the kernel tree and putting it into the right man
> page structure.
> 
> For inspiration, the Linux kernel itself has, after substantial
> discussion, recently started adopting a different policy, where
> AI-generated contributions are permitted, but where it is still made
> clear that human contributors must review all AI-generated code and
> have the same responsibilities as for a normal human-authored patch:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst
> 
> I realize that the Landlock use case alone is maybe not enough to
> change your stance on this, but I feel it's worth at least pointing
> out that there are use cases with potential upsides.
> 
> I think that with a Linux-like policy for coding assistants, it would
> be easier for us to keep the man pages up to date.

Thanks for the suggestion.  I'm certainly less worried about this
specific use case than for anything else.  But I still don't think it
would be a good idea.  And the ethical concerns remain.  Let's keep the
anti-AI policy.

> –Günther
> 
> 
> Footnotes
> 
> [^1] An alternative that has been considered in the past was to create
>      a mechanistic translation program to create the man pages from
>      kernel .rst and .h files, but this also seems brittle and would
>      mean that the man page structure would likely stay close to the
>      kernel documentation in structure.  In my understanding, Linux's
>      eBPF helpers use that approach.

Yes, bpf-helpers(7) does that.  I hate it, but I prefer it over AI.  :)


Have a lovely day!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]