RFC: The Binutils and LLM generated patches

[Richard Earnshaw (lists)]

On 03/10/2025 18:07, Paul Koning via Binutils wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 3, 2025, at 11:45 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 02/10/2025 14:44, Nick Clifton wrote:
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>>  I think that it is time that the GNU Binutils project had a position
>>>  on whether or not it will accept LLM generated content.  I am
>>>  proposing the attached text as a description of the project's standing
>>>  on this issue, and I am interested to hear your comments.
>>>
>>>  My plan is to add this text - or rather whatever final version we
>>>  reach - to the binutils/README file and the Contributors page on the
>>>  binutils wiki.  I am also wondering if we should have a file similar
>>>  to the binutils/SECURITY.txt file.  But if so, what name should we use?
>>>
>>>  The proposed text also invents two new tags for LLM generated
>>>  contributions:  Generated-By:  and  LLM-Query:  I just pulled these
>>>  out of thin air, so feel to suggest better ones, or tell me that they
>>>  are pointless.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>  Nick
>>>
>>
>> I think using an LLM to help improve the /readability/ of documentation should also be OK.  The key point though is that the primary copyrightable step comes from the initial authoring and that should be done by the human.
> 
> Yes, but I think that tools for fixing layout, finding spelling errors, etc., are not really AI and that sort of jobs is not one for LLMs at all.  Those are fixed function well defined tasks done with traditional programs that are obvious state transformers, where IP issues cannot arise.

I'm not talking about traditional tools (like ispell), or even the minor grammar suggestions that tools like Office have had for years, but more of AI tools that can take your text and write a completely new version that has better structure and clarity.  I've seen tools that can do that and they can, when used with care, make a huge difference to the readability of a document.

R.