Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes: > On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 08:17:27AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 10:25 AM Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> From: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > >> + >> >> +The increasing prevalence of AI code generators, most notably but not >> >> limited >> > >> > More detail is needed on what an "AI code generator" is. Coding >> > assistant tools range from autocompletion to linters to automatic code >> > generators. In addition there are other AI-related tools like ChatGPT >> > or Gemini as a chatbot that can people use like Stackoverflow or an >> > API documentation summarizer. >> > >> > I think the intent is to say: do not put code that comes from _any_ AI >> > tool into QEMU. >> > >> > It would be okay to use AI to research APIs, algorithms, brainstorm >> > ideas, debug the code, analyze the code, etc but the actual code >> > changes must not be generated by AI. > > The scope of the policy is around contributions we receive as > patches with SoB. Researching / brainstorming / analysis etc > are not contribution activities, so not covered by the policy > IMHO.
Yes. More below. >> The existing text is about "AI code generators". However, the "most >> notably LLMs" that follows it could lead readers to believe it's about >> more than just code generation, because LLMs are in fact used for more. >> I figure this is your concern. >> >> We could instead start wide, then narrow the focus to code generation. >> Here's my try: >> >> The increasing prevalence of AI-assisted software development results >> in a number of difficult legal questions and risks for software >> projects, including QEMU. Of particular concern is code generated by >> `Large Language Models >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model>`__ (LLMs). > > Documentation we maintain has the same concerns as code. > So I'd suggest to substitute 'code' with 'code / content'. Makes sense, thanks! >> If we want to mention uses of AI we consider okay, I'd do so further >> down, to not distract from the main point here. Perhaps: >> >> The QEMU project thus requires 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 either known or suspected. >> >> This policy does not apply to other uses of AI, such as researching APIs or >> algorithms, static analysis, or debugging. >> >> Examples of tools impacted by this policy includes both GitHub's CoPilot, >> OpenAI's ChatGPT, and Meta's Code Llama, amongst many others which are less >> well known. >> >> The paragraph in the middle is new, the other two are unchanged. >> >> Thoughts? > > IMHO its redundant, as the policy is expressly around contribution of > code/content, and those activities as not contribution related, so > outside the scope already. The very first paragraph in this file already set the scope: "provenance of patch submissions [...] to the project", so you have a point here. But does repeating the scope here hurt or help? >> >> +to, `Large Language Models >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model>`__ >> >> +(LLMs) results in a number of difficult legal questions and risks for >> >> software >> >> +projects, including QEMU. >> >> Thanks! >> >> [...] >> > > With regards, > Daniel
