RFC: The Binutils and LLM generated patches

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Sid,

>>    Generated-By: GNU-LLM version 1.0
>>    LLM-Query: Create a program to solve all GNU problems
> 
> Minor nit: due to the nature of LLMs, the query will likely 
 > not result in the same output at all times.  I can see why
 > you'd want the query though, but maybe also add in a note
 > like so?>
> ```
> The LLM-Query needs to be recorded for auditing purposes, but is not expected to produce the exact same output due to the non-deterministic nature of LLMs.

OK, I can do that.

> Also maybe, replace LLMs with AI in general?

Ah but I am trying to avoid the use of the term A.I. in this
document.  (As explained in the footnotes).

>  Or is binutils OK with patch submissions from other forms of AI,

No.  If the copyright ownership of a - legally significant - submission
is unclear, then it is unacceptable to the Binutils.

> e.g. a reinforcement learning bot that has been trained to 
> spot a buffer overflow?  Such a bot would also need code as training data, 
 > but it may or may not have the same challenges as an LLM model trained on,

Maybe, maybe not.  But until the lawyers sort this out and there is a clear,
legal definition of what can and cannot be copyrighted and who owns that
copyright, the binutils (and open source projects in general imho) cannot
afford to accept such submissions.

> You could make a distinction (e.g. an AI model that has been trained 
 > exclusively on data that has a clear copyright and the submitter is
 > legally allowed to contribute it to binutils under said license) but
 > that could be applied in general to an AI model without singling out
 > LLMs.

I think that that would be something to look at once it becomes a reality.
I do not know of any such models now, and I think that it is important
that we get a policy document in place soon.  I am not saying that the
policy is set in stone and cannot be revised, but I am saying that we
need something clear and simple and in place today.

Cheers
   Nick