From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC377C61DF7 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 15:05:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r6BFb-0000pt-J1; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 10:04:19 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r6BFW-0000l1-LW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 10:04:16 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r6BFU-00051h-Gr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 10:04:14 -0500 Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2c88750e7d1so11472771fa.3 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 07:04:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1700751849; x=1701356649; darn=nongnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Zb4pZE1n8XkIan6OmO19ZgzWKPysQ6m8AXvlOIgi7fM=; b=SVlvovxz7SatKkXGcto0fQs3ZA/ENE+K4iJmlHIUaqaM6/GTWbyC20GSgDanazxIgR unjI0Q+nf5ArjbBu+ZB+E+GQGf1NUub1CEFrfSint+dNi+tvyCnEDfKkeOdukW9TiTX8 DiB0kTaavfy9dTQz71cuBG6NxI0oOEwBao3xKcB3QktuKwsvuOv91ChaCyaXszd/d0OS 163bqbWUY3ofKGVEoJn3FUqpRvCZORnb9pKfVu7aTIUuNxKB5Hhd5I3BXSkvO3ha8NNz IBnl87IB6nQjQWhDuNVqTWrW62a5h7XvH0AQgRH44RmA04406c+IuPu6WU3tmwlfa7a4 nsWA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700751849; x=1701356649; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Zb4pZE1n8XkIan6OmO19ZgzWKPysQ6m8AXvlOIgi7fM=; b=bnNszYb4SN7s0kuwKKWMB+Tu54m0uDLCNtLOvNP1CcD2K7vgPkHcZkQ8ge8uoZzvhI keKZvYbjH/RBZQILx0As234lQNyi4g8TaMf+e9fWvcXv6owImOWP/km04iimHdrlEnAv 4YgBSM0JKaw0Bu+NxFiLAUC8QgT4sa+cDASMq1MiAlurzqdh+toH77TcofzeEiNjdDGw 3dFK/OGTKSYzodiTcQxPJ6sa3gMBpHkO81OMqNF87OuyBNQdomm6sHtvvkelQUo2xkWm sti/tJxDzb6Ce+ya3qxM4ypbcv7DTje2Va92riRp3n07Vh+oKkXTmNcOGr08OBIRV+vs KjuA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzk6gpWOQtIkLPtHFFUyYqbJQGdA+qD629TI1wb/Oq6ZiQKfQ0m Ina96K8/6H2jMnjoR9Z6dfCx9z2FDZpaT0pLSD/5xg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGyJ2mS/Ob35BazdagdfXsYIUIjPdHF8bBvnBfotK/j38Gsdu7krJRP5/OeTRyyd6UD/T1ENA== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:2a82:0:b0:2c5:16c0:6239 with SMTP id q124-20020a2e2a82000000b002c516c06239mr4033126ljq.51.1700751848674; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 07:04:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from meli.delivery (adsl-27.37.6.163.tellas.gr. [37.6.163.27]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r4-20020a05600c458400b004094d4292aesm2296413wmo.18.2023.11.23.07.04.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 23 Nov 2023 07:04:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:56:28 +0200 From: Manos Pitsidianakis To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , "Daniel P. Berrang=?UTF-8?B?w6k=?= " Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Richard Henderson , Alexander Graf , Alex Benn=?UTF-8?B?w6k=?= e , Paolo Bonzini , Markus Armbruster , Phil Mathieu-Daud=?UTF-8?B?w6kg?=, Stefan Hajnoczi , Thomas Huth , Kevin Wolf , Gerd Hoffmann , Mark Cave-Ayland , Peter Maydell Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: define policy forbidding use of "AI" / LLM code generators User-Agent: meli 0.8.4 References: <20231123114026.3589272-1-berrange@redhat.com> <20231123114026.3589272-3-berrange@redhat.com> <20231123092523-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20231123092523-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Message-ID: <4l0it.9kkxe9s135lg@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::22c; envelope-from=manos.pitsidianakis@linaro.org; helo=mail-lj1-x22c.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:35, "Michael S. Tsirkin" 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 >> --- >> 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 >> [Rebased and added support for 'foo'] >> Signed-off-by: New Person >> + >> +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 `__ >> +/ 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.