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

[DJ Delorie]

"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> writes:
> And for programming that, AI technology is not ready yet.

I'm not a fan of AI but it's a tool, not a religion.  It has its place,
and there are things it can do easier than we can.  I see no reason to
not treat AI as any other new contributor - we should guide it and
mentor it, but not trust it until it has earned that trust.  Let it do
simple or mechanical changes at first, and build from there.  GLibC was
"not ready" once too.

However, I'm also concerned about the copyright sitation wrt AI.
Perhaps we could limit AI to non-copyrightable (i.e. small, trivial)
changes?  Stuff like changing an internal API, updating copyright (yes I
know we have a script for it, these are examples ;), etc.  Stuff that is
possibly in the "trivial patches" category.

Otherwise, I'm inclined to trust the submitter to choose when to use AI
and when not to; using AI as a starting point for a complex change could
be a huge win, but the patch is still the responsibility of the
submitter.  If a developer uses AI and fails their review, that's their
problem (and their reputation), but let's not fail/stop them *because*
of the AI.  It's the results that count, not the process.

Also, I would not be opposed to using AI on the review side - perhaps as
a "note only" reviewer, or maybe reject-only, but it would not count as
a "human reviewer" for approving a patch.  More eyes on a patch are
good, even if those eyes are AI's.