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 2526FC61D97 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 15:33:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r6BhO-0005nk-Hn; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 10:33:05 -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 1r6BhG-0005Y6-Ff for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 10:32:54 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-x32e.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::32e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r6BhB-0000Q1-CJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 10:32:53 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4083f613272so6729135e9.1 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 07:32:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1700753566; x=1701358366; darn=nongnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:user-agent :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=VNB0GZqw9S6CWE/ElqMrEP+EfWyAbKCG3btAwz5VLt8=; b=epC8PLstbxkShyalkE7MNp5ZR0ppEx49t5NgmnkNykCP3DOyGYZlcxuyNnzYyWtZNC 3hFWU4HK7Ln/LyId3hf+D2Db+6ZZbhd+Ee1qZn8CHJY9QCZTY55mYSubjZkKUgBpVUrN Fn7MYMYLZuzRDDjc7XKne0x/NQoxDzPeYcCJCb1PvqhU+gFupqaK06Mc8ateATfCGsim upDwPB+LFsJxpfs5L+g17m83d2SunFa+0fN83gbZ+QjU/oOM3OnlXV+nHgCabq9klyN5 ElBBoZK5xcIZUer8eqYZATm6EQso3U0pxTLBXZGzbmTxI49SY+BI6TONmD/qCgljRQ1C FcIQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700753566; x=1701358366; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:user-agent :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VNB0GZqw9S6CWE/ElqMrEP+EfWyAbKCG3btAwz5VLt8=; b=WjrJXQXeJz6ono4Iv1weihi2/y+QgUlH2TjN5ShFw4XNEbgElU0mszV5HVx6sZxqAz hSrisS5N8lZmTXArBQIZSxTG8rRZoYN5xG7VhBM22gMbjqrqoht/YgaThTvi28hvE0Yx 3271iicMQPklZonCJnNOTqUEyCB610w/2L6hVZcUR1LZ3t90DPWjuZCp1CIA7Hw8DyJl W6Vo/kZ3Enq3K3mYIRBuYSvYKyj1HrL+Euo97SkbrewWUKfnLOOso2bufRoT6eJ+ia7B t2Y1IGPZcUVabDKo6al7Uh5RjoznHtVPG0xPNWdcNOYvDIRvbShXdZDiJY+NLyTSq+pB kgHw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyvsehHwgsQiFpfwAIHtSVpkCOYXf/QA3iMDBtDC9PPb7i3iz46 Aohq4yviQk6gPPKMTGIX41gSxw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEJLs3yMWCYZJ2Vv3e3synoMLyQP//ZSPAYS6tzXy68H3+uHz9/Lry1VjtL6X2Kbr5HGY8T6Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1ca6:b0:40b:3730:edc1 with SMTP id k38-20020a05600c1ca600b0040b3730edc1mr1183649wms.5.1700753565713; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 07:32:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from draig.lan ([85.9.250.243]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c3-20020a05600c0ac300b004064288597bsm2288736wmr.30.2023.11.23.07.32.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 23 Nov 2023 07:32:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from draig (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by draig.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0074A5F756; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 15:32:44 +0000 (GMT) From: =?utf-8?Q?Alex_Benn=C3=A9e?= To: Manos Pitsidianakis Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , =?utf-8?Q?Daniel_P=2E_Berrang=C3=A9=20?= , Richard Henderson , Alexander Graf , Paolo Bonzini , Markus Armbruster , Phil =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , 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 In-Reply-To: <4l0it.9kkxe9s135lg@linaro.org> (Manos Pitsidianakis's message of "Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:56:28 +0200") References: <20231123114026.3589272-1-berrange@redhat.com> <20231123114026.3589272-3-berrange@redhat.com> <20231123092523-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <4l0it.9kkxe9s135lg@linaro.org> User-Agent: mu4e 1.11.25; emacs 29.1 Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 15:32:44 +0000 Message-ID: <87a5r4eb8j.fsf@draig.linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::32e; envelope-from=alex.bennee@linaro.org; helo=mail-wm1-x32e.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 Manos Pitsidianakis writes: > On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:35, "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: >>On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:40:26AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 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. Berrang=C3=A9 >>> --- >>> 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 submissi= ons >>> +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. >>> + >>> + >>> +The QEMU maintainers thus require that contributors refrain from using >>> +"AI" code generators on patches intended to be submitted to the projec= t, >>> +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. I'm fairly sure my Emacs auto-complete would fail by that definition. --=20 Alex Benn=C3=A9e Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro