glibc AI policy

[Andrew Pinski]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 9:27 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> * DJ Delorie:
>
> > However, proving a negative is difficult.  In this case, as difficult as
> > proving you have clear copyright status.  Making "prove you're not AI" a
> > CoC violation opens up the opportunity to use this CoC rule as a weapon
> > against contributors, and I oppose that.
>
> Yes, that's my concern as well.  It's not only that it might get
> weaponized.  It really sucks if you are accused of being an LLM.  I
> don't want reviewers doing that routinely.  It can easily lead to a very
> bad first patch experience.

I think it is a legit question to ask (once and if it seems obvious to
the reviewer and others) if the used an LLM to help write the patch.
It is definitely not legit to keep on asking for sure unless the
person has admitted it in the past and failed to disclosure it.
It is in a similar fashion to be asked if you can submit the patch for
copyright reasons. Or if they copied it from somewhere else.
Now if the reviewer is doing the asking all the time to every new
person coming in (or a pattern of them asking when there is some bias
going on); then yes there is a CoC issue.

The reason why I mentioned (a pattern of) not disclosuring the use of
LLM is a CoC issue is because it is conduct issue that has not been
corrected; in the same way of not providing a clear copyrightablity
issue. I am not saying one event of not disclosuring LLM usage is a
CoC issue but if there is a pattern of it.

Thanks,
Andrea

>
> Thanks,
> Florian
>