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

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

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 12:25, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> wrote:
>Am 23.11.2023 um 15:56 hat Manos Pitsidianakis geschrieben:
>> 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.
>
>How are these definitions related to your ability to sign the DCO?
>
>Kevin

This was a response to Michael's salient observation that AI and LLM are 
very vague and not clearly defined terms. I did not mention DCO at all.

Manos