Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: define policy forbidding use of "AI" / LLM code generators

[Manos Pitsidianakis <manos.pitsidianakis@linaro.org>]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:35, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:40:26AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> There has been an explosion of interest in so called "AI" (LLM)
>> code generators in the past year or so. Thus far though, this is
>> has not been matched by a broadly accepted legal interpretation
>> of the licensing implications for code generator outputs. While
>> the vendors may claim there is no problem and a free choice of
>> license is possible, they have an inherent conflict of interest
>> in promoting this interpretation. More broadly there is, as yet,
>> no broad consensus on the licensing implications of code generators
>> trained on inputs under a wide variety of licenses.
>> 
>> The DCO requires contributors to assert they have the right to
>> contribute under the designated project license. Given the lack
>> of consensus on the licensing of "AI" (LLM) code generator output,
>> it is not considered credible to assert compliance with the DCO
>> clause (b) or (c) where a patch includes such generated code.
>> 
>> This patch thus defines a policy that the QEMU project will not
>> accept contributions where use of "AI" (LLM) code generators is
>> either known, or suspected.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  docs/devel/code-provenance.rst | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst
>> index b4591a2dec..a6e42c6b1b 100644
>> --- a/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst
>> +++ b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst
>> @@ -195,3 +195,43 @@ example::
>>    Signed-off-by: Some Person <some.person@example.com>
>>    [Rebased and added support for 'foo']
>>    Signed-off-by: New Person <new.person@example.com>
>> +
>> +Use of "AI" (LLM) code generators
>> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> +
>> +TL;DR:
>> +
>> +  **Current QEMU project policy is to DECLINE any contributions
>> +  which are believed to include or derive from "AI" (LLM)
>> +  generated code.**
>> +
>> +The existence of "AI" (`Large Language Model <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model>`__
>> +/ LLM) code generators raises a number of difficult legal questions, a
>> +number of which impact on Open Source projects. As noted earlier, the
>> +QEMU community requires that contributors certify their patch submissions
>> +are made in accordance with the rules of the :ref:`dco` (DCO). When a
>> +patch contains "AI" generated code this raises difficulties with code
>> +provenence and thus DCO compliance.
>> +
>> +To satisfy the DCO, the patch contributor has to fully understand
>> +the origins and license of code they are contributing to QEMU. The
>> +license terms that should apply to the output of an "AI" code generator
>> +are ill-defined, given that both training data and operation of the
>> +"AI" are typically opaque to the user. Even where the training data
>> +is said to all be open source, it will likely be under a wide variety
>> +of license terms.
>> +
>> +While the vendor's of "AI" code generators may promote the idea that
>> +code output can be taken under a free choice of license, this is not
>> +yet considered to be a generally accepted, nor tested, legal opinion.
>> +
>> +With this in mind, the QEMU maintainers does not consider it is
>> +currently possible to comply with DCO terms (b) or (c) for most "AI"
>> +generated code.
>> +
>> +The QEMU maintainers thus require 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 known or suspected.
>> +
>> +Examples of tools impacted by this policy includes both GitHub CoPilot,
>> +and ChatGPT, amongst many others which are less well known.
>
>
>So you called out these two by name, fine, but given "AI" is in scare
>quotes I don't really know what is or is not allowed and I don't know
>how will contributors know.  Is the "AI" that one must not use
>necessarily an LLM?  And how do you define LLM even? Wikipedia says
>"general-purpose language understanding and generation".
>
>
>All this seems vague to me.
>
>
>However, can't we define a simpler more specific policy?
>For example, isn't it true that *any* automatically generated code
>can only be included if the scripts producing said code
>are also included or otherwise available under GPLv2?

The following definition makes sense to me:

- Automated codegen tool must be idempotent.
- Automated codegen tool must not use statistical modelling.

I'd remove all AI or LLM references. These are non-specific, colloquial 
and in the case of `AI`, non-technical. This policy should apply the 
same to a Markov chain code generator.