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

[DJ Delorie]

Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> writes:
> I'm more in favour of clearly identifying AI-generated content so
> that...

Agreed, if you used AI, let us know, if for no other reason than
"copyright mess" ;-)

>> Otherwise, I'm inclined to trust the submitter to choose when to use AI
>
> However if a developer uses AI to even start a large change and then 
> makes prodigious changes to the result before submitting, who owns the 
> copyright for that change?  This is probably where things get hairy.

Right, hence "otherwise".  The copyright mess is a mess, and the FSF is
right to require known authorships, but at the moment AI is an unknown
here.  My paragraph above intentionally ignored the copyright issue,
because it's a mess.

>> 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.
>
> Sure, but more like a non-blocking vote, even for rejections.

That's what I meant by "note only" but even if it were set up for
rejections, it's still just a voting party, and we've overriden
rejections from humans before too.