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 03986C61DF4 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 11:42:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r6UZ8-0005Yu-2q; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:41:46 -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 1r6UZ5-0005YE-Qr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:41:43 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r6UYq-00013C-Gq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:41:43 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1700826087; 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=wSbmGEf4fPvrvpHLPAqfnGkgDVNeeyvr1d/iduuNx3Q=; b=iLE/q9WBshwHnJugDebklg4wINkRMZpp1wlUtXobJ3wm2ojqW6yPoBiGZDEteHVGkhafxF aea/Xvab3w91KnsJFPF8h1+tYT1aqTc8gQCLQLRTdQAzadGGpoKPMBEX+jlj/FT2x6kqp6 7gFzO224OD1zDI+vZb7Lw035HpSbOvE= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-683-Qto2_0hqMKSizQcqa042ZA-1; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:41:25 -0500 X-MC-Unique: Qto2_0hqMKSizQcqa042ZA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.2]) (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 6F6508007B3; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 11:41:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.42.28.110]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFCDD40C6EB9; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 11:41:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 11:41:20 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, 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 Message-ID: References: <20231123114026.3589272-1-berrange@redhat.com> <20231123114026.3589272-3-berrange@redhat.com> <20231123092523-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20231123172828-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <87plzzcuzm.fsf@draig.linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87plzzcuzm.fsf@draig.linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.10 (2023-03-25) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.2 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=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 Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 10:21:17AM +0000, Alex Bennée wrote: > Daniel P. Berrangé writes: > > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 05:39:18PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 05:58:45PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > >> > The license of a code generation tool itself is usually considered > >> > to be not a factor in the license of its output. > >> > >> Really? I would find it very surprising if a code generation tool that > >> is not a language model and so is not understanding the code it's > >> generating did not include some code snippets going into the output. > >> It is also possible to unintentionally run afoul of GPL's definition of source > >> code which is "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". > >> So even if you have copyright to input, dumping just output and putting > >> GPL on it might or might not be ok. > > > > Consider the C pre-processor. This takes an input .c file, and expands > > all the macros, to split out a new .c file. > > > > The license of the output .c file is determined by the license of the > > input .c file. The license of the CPP impl (whether OSS or proprietary) > > doesn't have any influence on the license of the output file, it cannot > > magically force the output file to be proprietary any more than it can > > force it to be output file GPL. > > LLM's are just a tool like a compiler (albeit with spookier different > internals). The prompt and the instructions are arguably the more > important part of how to get good results from the LLM transformation. > In fact most of the way I've been using them has been by pasting some > existing code and asking for review or transformation of it. > > However I totally get that using the various online LLMs you have very > little transparency about what has gone into their training and therefor > there is a danger of proprietary code being hallucinated out of their > matricies. Conversely what if I use an LLM like OpenLLaMa: > > https://github.com/openlm-research/open_llama > > I have fairly exhaustive definitions of what went into the training data > which of most interest is probably the StarCoder dataset (paper): > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cN-b9GnWtHzQRoE7M7gAEyivY0kl4BYs/view > > where there are tools to detect if generated code has been lifted > directly from the dataset or is indeed a transformation. I've not looked at the links above, but I think if someone can make an compelling argument that *specific* tools have sufficient transparency to be compatible with signing the DCO, then I think we could maintain a list of exceptions in the policy. 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 :|