From: rsbecker@nexbridge.com Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2025 16:45:43 GMT Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] SubmittingPatches: add section about AI Message-ID: <061a01dc3485$2ca50820$85ef1860$@nexbridge.com> In-Reply-To: On October 3, 2025 12:21 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >Christian Couder writes: > >>> A milder way to phrase this would be to jump directly to "we reject >>> what the sender cannot explain when asked about it". "How does this >>> work?" "Why is this a good thing to do?" "Where did it come from?" >>> instead of saying "looks AI generated". >>> >>> It would sidestep the "who decides if it looks AI generated?" question. >> >> I don't think the "who decides if it looks AI generated?" question is >> very relevant. If someone says that a patch looks mostly AI generated >> and gives a good argument supporting this claim, it's the same as if >> someone gives any other good argument against the patch. In the end, >> the community and you decide if the argument is good enough and if the >> patch should be rejected based on that (and other arguments for and >> against the patch of course). > >And then who plays the final arbiter? One can keep insisting on a patch that looks >to me an apparent AI slop that it was what one wrote oneself, but you may find it a >plausible that it was a human creation. Then what? > >It is very much relevant to avoid such argument, because the point is irrelevant. We >are trying to avoid accepting something the submitter has no rights to claim theirs, >and requesting them to explain where it came from, how it works, etc. would be a >better test than "does it look AI generated? to everybody?", wouldn't it? Can the cover page from the originator contain statements that: a) I (whomever it is) has the legal authority to the submitted patch without violating any copyright. b) The code is original work and does not violate any IP laws where I (whomever) am located. c) The code is not generated from AI and/or despite being AI generated, I (whomever) have verified that the code works as anticipated and does not contain AI contents trained from another code-base or project that might otherwise violate b), and that I (whomever) accept all responsibility for falsely making this statement. This could be changed to an agreement maintained by the Conservancy prior to Accepting any non-trivial contributions providing the agreement is referenced in Either the cover page or commit comments.