glibc AI policy

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 4/14/26 2:09 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Carlos O'Donell:
> 
>> On 4/13/26 8:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> For the record, I'm not happy with requiring Assisted-by:.  If those
>>> companies want us to advertise their products, that's something they
>>> should pay for.  It also raises the question whether we need to track if
>>> users paid models or the free version, which may have different
>>> ownership terms of generated materials.  Without such information, it
>>> would be misleading to use the trailers for any project-specific purpose
>>> (which is why I think it's mostly about advertising).
>>
>> Sorry, when I reviewed your earlier patch I tried to express that I did
>> not think that we needed to write the name of the actual tool used, but
>> I failed to express that clearly. When I said "LLM" I meant it literally
>> in that we could use "Assisted-by: LLM" and that would be sufficient
>> for now.
> 
> I can live with that.
> 
> Regarding outcomes, I would like to see a third one: We should not fall
> into the trap a dehumanize contributions because we could be wrong.

May you please expand on this a bit more?

I'd like to understand your position in more detail and be able to advocate
for the outcome.

> Last week, Google Gemini claimed that the model names in a commit
> message were AI hallucinations.  That felt … odd.  (I copied those names
> from a log file; they do not match the names model providers use in
> their marketing materials.)

I value all of your contributions, and would not want any of you to feel
dehumanized. It is absolutely a human quality to be fallible, and we should
not shame anyone for making mistakes.

Reviewing anything together for me is squarely focused on growing together
(sometimes I get schooled in a review).

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.