Re: [PATCH v2] SubmittingPatches: add section about AI
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Oct 1, 2025, 20:59 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq4isi1gpm.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <20251001140310.527097-1-christian.couder@gmail.com>
Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
Show 20 quoted lines
> As more and more developer tools use AI, we are facing two main risks > related to AI generated content: > > - its situation regarding copyright and license is not clear, > and: > > - more and more bad quality content could be submitted for review to > the mailing list. > > To mitigate both risks, let's add an "Use of Artificial Intelligence" > section to "Documentation/SubmittingPatches" with the goal of > discouraging its blind use to generate content that is submitted to > the project, while still allowing us to benefit from its help in some > innovative, useful and less risky ways. > > Helped-by: Rick Sanders <rick@sfconservancy.org> > Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> > > --- > This is inspired by the "AI guidelines" section we already have for
A more important thing to mention is that Rick is a lawyer at SFC helped us to draft the wording used in this one.
Show 17 quoted lines
> +[[ai]] > +=== Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) > + > +The Developer's Certificate of Origin requires contributors to certify > +that they know the origin of their contributions to the project and > +that they have the right to submit it under the project's license. > +It's not yet clear that this can be legally satisfied when submitting > +significant amount of content that has been generated by AI tools. > + > +Another issue with AI generated content is that AIs still often > +hallucinate or just produce bad code, commit messages, documentation > +or output, even when you point out their mistakes. > + > +To avoid these issues, we will reject anything that looks AI > +generated, that sounds overly formal or bloated, that looks like AI > +slop, that looks good on the surface but makes no sense, or that > +senders don’t understand or cannot explain.
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.
Show 12 quoted lines
> +We strongly recommend using AI tools carefully and responsibly. > + > +Contributors would often benefit more from AI by using it to guide and > +help them step by step towards producing a solution by themselves > +rather than by asking for a full solution that they would then mostly > +copy-paste. They can also use AI to help with debugging, or with > +checking for obvious mistakes, things that can be improved, things > +that don’t match our style, guidelines or our feedback, before sending > +it to us. > + > [[git-tools]] > === Generate your patch using Git tools out of your commits.
Thanks.