Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] docs: define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>]

On 4/6/25 09:15, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 08:17:27AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 10:25 AM Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
>   >> +
>>>> +The increasing prevalence of AI code generators, most notably but not limited
>>>
>>> More detail is needed on what an "AI code generator" is. Coding
>>> assistant tools range from autocompletion to linters to automatic code
>>> generators. In addition there are other AI-related tools like ChatGPT
>>> or Gemini as a chatbot that can people use like Stackoverflow or an
>>> API documentation summarizer.
>>>
>>> I think the intent is to say: do not put code that comes from _any_ AI
>>> tool into QEMU.
>>>
>>> It would be okay to use AI to research APIs, algorithms, brainstorm
>>> ideas, debug the code, analyze the code, etc but the actual code
>>> changes must not be generated by AI.
> 
> The scope of the policy is around contributions we receive as
> patches with SoB. Researching / brainstorming / analysis etc
> are not contribution activities, so not covered by the policy
> IMHO.
> 
>>
>> The existing text is about "AI code generators".  However, the "most
>> notably LLMs" that follows it could lead readers to believe it's about
>> more than just code generation, because LLMs are in fact used for more.
>> I figure this is your concern.
>>
>> We could instead start wide, then narrow the focus to code generation.
>> Here's my try:
>>
>>    The increasing prevalence of AI-assisted software development results
>>    in a number of difficult legal questions and risks for software
>>    projects, including QEMU.  Of particular concern is code generated by
>>    `Large Language Models
>>    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model>`__ (LLMs).
> 
> Documentation we maintain has the same concerns as code.
> So I'd suggest to substitute 'code' with 'code / content'.

Why couldn't we accept documentation patches improved using LLM?

As a non-native English speaker being often stuck trying to describe
function APIs, I'm very tempted to use a LLM to review my sentences
and make them better understandable.

>> If we want to mention uses of AI we consider okay, I'd do so further
>> down, to not distract from the main point here.  Perhaps:
>>
>>    The QEMU project thus requires that contributors refrain from using AI code
>>    generators on patches intended to be submitted to the project, and will
>>    decline any contribution if use of AI is either known or suspected.
>>
>>    This policy does not apply to other uses of AI, such as researching APIs or
>>    algorithms, static analysis, or debugging.
>>
>>    Examples of tools impacted by this policy includes both GitHub's CoPilot,
>>    OpenAI's ChatGPT, and Meta's Code Llama, amongst many others which are less
>>    well known.
>>
>> The paragraph in the middle is new, the other two are unchanged.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> IMHO its redundant, as the policy is expressly around contribution of
> code/content, and those activities as not contribution related, so
> outside the scope already.
> 
>>
>>>> +to, `Large Language Models <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model>`__
>>>> +(LLMs) results in a number of difficult legal questions and risks for software
>>>> +projects, including QEMU.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> [...]
>>
> 
> With regards,
> Daniel