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

[Florian Weimer]

* Andrew Pinski:

>> > 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.
>
> I disagree that it bans `certain assistive technologies`. And I
> disagree with the notion that it is arbitrary at all.

The Gentoo policy says:

| It is expressly forbidden to contribute to Gentoo any content that
| has been created with the assistance of Natural Language Processing
| artificial intelligence tools.

Why doesn't this ban the use of (moderately advanced) screen readers
for Gentoo development?  Or machine translation, even if used only for
understanding project documentation and source code comments?

>> We could add some clarifications to the contribution guidelines,
>> although they are already quite long.
>
> NO. We should just ban AI assistive code generation in general and not
> carve out any exceptions. We should also ban it for commit messages
> too.

Again, a full ban risks discriminating against anyone who deviates
from the normative/default developer.

> AI assistive code generation (include white space fixes) is broken
> code and might include non-GPL complaint code and it makes it harder
> for the submitter to even know if they can submit it. Banning it right
> off prevents this mess from happening in the first place.

I don't want to encourage anyone to argue with patch submitters if
their code has been AI-generated.  That path leads to a toxic project
culture.

We can revisit policies if we regularly receive significant
contributions that look as if they could be problematic.