Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:45 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to
> look into formally addressing the related concerns.

> 1. Copyright concerns.

I do think it makes sense to consider some of this.

However, I feel like the proposal is redundant with the existing
requirement to signoff on the DCO, which says:

>>> By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

>>> 1. The contribution was created in whole or in part by me, and
>>> I have the right to submit it under the free software license
>>> indicated in the file; or

>>> 2. The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of
>>> my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate free software license,
>>> and I have the right under that license to submit that work with
>>> modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under the
>>> same free software license (unless I am permitted to submit under a
>>> different license), as indicated in the file; or

>>> 3. The contribution is a license text (or a file of similar nature),
>>> and verbatim distribution is allowed; or

>>> 4. The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person
>>> who certified 1., 2., 3., or 4., and I have not modified it.

Perhaps we ought to just re-advertise the policy that already exists?

> 2. Quality concerns.

As far as quality is concerned, I again share the concerns you raise,
and I think we should just re-emphasize what many other industries are
already making clear - that individuals are responsible for the
quality of their contributions.  Copy/pasting it blindly from an AI is
no different from copy/pasting it from some other random website, even
if it is otherwise legal.

> 3. Ethical concerns.

I think it is best to just avoid taking a stand on this.  Our ethics
are already documented in the Social Contract.

I think everybody agrees that what is right and wrong is obvious and
clear and universal.  Then we're all shocked to find that large
numbers of people have a universal perspective different from our own.
Even if 90% of contributors agree with a particular position, if we
start lopping off parts of our community 10% at a time we'll probably
find ourselves alone in a room sooner or later.  We can't make every
hill the one to die on.

> I think adding "made by real people" to the list of our advantages
> would be a good thing

Somehow I doubt this is going to help us steal market share from the
numerous other popular source-based Linux distros.  :)

To be clear, I don't think it is a bad idea to just reiterate that we
aren't looking for help from people who want to create scripts that
pipe things into some GPT API and pipe the output into a forum, bug,
issue, PR, or commit.  I've seen other FOSS projects struggling with
people trying to be "helpful" in this way.  I just don't think any of
this actually requires new policy.  If we find our policy to be
inadequate I think it is better to go back to the core principles and
better articulate what we're trying to achieve, rather than adjust it
to fit the latest fashions.

-- 
Rich