From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08299158041 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 17:42:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B5F42BC019; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 17:41:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf1-f44.google.com (mail-lf1-f44.google.com [209.85.167.44]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D71E22BC013 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 17:41:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f44.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-512e4f4e463so5358591e87.1 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 09:41:55 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1709055713; x=1709660513; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=lJZTufRTzPiQ5kgvLQURuUuoPCJ0fufnBC5f/j/V+iA=; b=px1fGmZ96rt7VPZ/8wX49a3Z0pplmojPSctprVDKcgpn5IxUfRWITs5C5wOnf85Wsy GJjDVVrdSzOj4HNSWF3C7ZGpbg/pRqV19a5/rOLHvhO2jV0EYtpQpIYUmjWB06dZGnEo pNQDaEu/JZvLn/0ZhfRhqIUdnkmp3oK+UhyjIycmcHUexRMBn2h1mxcZn2ULD2etS+ZS IhIWmZLN8Uk3dXt6MwlqFcHQhAbE0e29DvFKRIaxaPe8fLd7yyNtYD+ePMqWYziDuN5a ob6AgM8CoAy5+A5iKASAO6gbmsmr70tvW8lWZcS8cZUH2AauGYCrNfvb12rYk3GvwORN 7Ibw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxeG0lxYKxFIJVBUDssjgdxScfZsfu7ggOJyX1DI3wqvzo8J1zc 4F9fjZLz8zPe66pE3Wswgck/2N0eyNvMy1JjpiI7Y/Sm55jIMuUy6zxiFIy+dX2i1vEYYHVTr3r RgfmhBJfUcO1NXNmxPUlVLEP4wEkT8WVO6Is= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGBr4uaVk+iO/CkNuwsqeRCBSMQvTXGmNz2c4xmOeXMLfk+9lMyAwIQ7syVMH+hpVigoZSVZwjUfVMTzPUk0qg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:963:b0:512:f92e:b2ee with SMTP id v3-20020a056512096300b00512f92eb2eemr4886900lft.13.1709055713247; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 09:41:53 -0800 (PST) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Rich Freeman Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 12:41:42 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 22d9cf40-d7fa-4d31-bdca-cc659d74639c X-Archives-Hash: 0810341a0b04a35dffb6f6b71a2e6954 On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:45=E2=80=AFAM Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny 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. --=20 Rich