Banning LLM-generated or assisted contributions to the GNU C Library

[Florian Weimer]

* Andreas K. Huettel:

> Dear all, 
>
> some time ago Gentoo Linux debated and decided an "AI Policy"
> [1]. Its verbatim text is
>
>> It is expressly forbidden to contribute to Gentoo any content that
>> has been created with the assistance of Natural Language Processing
>> artificial intelligence tools. This motion can be revisited, should
>> a case been made over such a tool that does not pose copyright,
>> ethical and quality concerns.
>
> I would like to propose that the GNU C Library adopts a similar policy.
>
> While I see the point of all rationales given in the Gentoo decision
> [1], my personal main drive is quality control and responsibility.
>
> We are not talking about programming a mobile phone tower defense
> game here.  We are however talking about code that is used in
> millions of devices worldwide in mission-critical and
> security-critical applications.
>
> And for programming that, AI technology is not ready yet.

> [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy

I think that should be up to the submitter.  The line can get really
murky.  The Gentoo policy appears to ban certain assistive
technologies, which I think is not appropriate at all.  I find it very
hard to come up with a policy that is not as arbitrary as requiring
that source code is edited with Emacs only.

We could add some clarifications to the contribution guidelines,
although they are already quite long.

* Code that is auto-generated should be clearly labeled as such.  If
  possible, auto-generated code should be regenerated at build time.

* If a patch contains auto-generated code, the submitter's review of
  that code does not count as peer review.

But we should find something that we can delete from the policy
instead before adding new things.