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 760D2C61D97 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 18:03:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r6E2B-0002FG-Ri; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 13:02:39 -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 1r6E2A-0002F3-BI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 13:02:38 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r6E28-0005Ud-A5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 13:02:38 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1700762554; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=zAO5rd9K9/wYeDw/EOGx4heQF8oHviptAGd2AVv7glA=; b=B/xFnybX7cK1SMG/e7zEUM8wOY8EdSaGk/EyV1DJ8uBqJsXyKKLdqyzEOr09oztRe4UdUx 4Wx3uUZlmWYG2uhhoOMQDPDQXkCFQ1NQLvSOuDNcSuor3Uk0SEHwW0LKR8tcazhQhZA1Pm qWN8z2EYbg4bIlwLV/1t9Ad7XSsbS3Q= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-408-k3LpNVZGPN6P71uUa91mLQ-1; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 13:02:31 -0500 X-MC-Unique: k3LpNVZGPN6P71uUa91mLQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.7]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD88D1C05132; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 18:02:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.42.28.44]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E6461C060B0; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 18:02:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 18:02:25 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Manos Pitsidianakis Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Richard Henderson , Alexander Graf , Alex =?utf-8?B?QmVubsOp?= e , 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 Message-ID: References: <20231123114026.3589272-1-berrange@redhat.com> <20231123114026.3589272-3-berrange@redhat.com> <20231123092523-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <4l0it.9kkxe9s135lg@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4l0it.9kkxe9s135lg@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.10 (2023-03-25) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.7 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -21 X-Spam_score: -2.2 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.058, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= 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, Nov 23, 2023 at 04:56:28PM +0200, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote: > 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. As a casual reader, I would find this somewhat unclear to interpet and relate to. > 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. The fact that they are colloaquial is, IMHO, a good thing is it makes the policy relatable to the casual reader who hears the terms "AI" and "LLM" in technical press articles/blogs/etc all over the place. I would have considered "Markov chain code generator" to fall under the "AI" reference, since "AI" has defacto become a general purpose term that covers a wierd variety of underlying technologies. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|