glibc AI policy

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 4/15/26 7:14 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * 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 don't reviewers to actively look for LLM usage in non-labeled
> contributions because it's bad to accuse someone of being an LLM when
> they are not.

I agree completely.

If they did not label their work "Assisted-by: LLM" then the contribution
must be considered to come from the author.

We can work to add a section to the "Contribution Checklist" and more
generally ask new contributors to review the entire list in a
non-judgemental way.

> So we can say “tool-generated contributions must be labeled as such”,
> but we can't really speculate publicly whether a particular contribution
> was written by hand or not.

What I can do is make it clear with my actions that behaviour that includes
calling the contributor a liar is unacceptable and will be considered
harassment under the Code of Conduct.

There might be situations where someone is identified as not being truthful,
but I'd like those situations to be raised directly with the Code of Conduct
Committee for review (https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/CoC/Committee).

These concerns aren't new, but "Assisted-by: LLM" brings them to the forefront
in a whole new light.

Does that align with what you're thinking?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.