On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 05:35:33AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
---updated proposal---
Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues
the following statement describing its current position on AI-assisted
contributions. This statement describes the position of the project at
the time it is adopted. That position may evolve as time passes
without the need to resort to future general resolutions. The GR
process remains available if the project needs a decision and cannot
come to a consensus.
LLMs have made a huge leap in language translations, but at the same
time depending on big tech companies to provide this service is not a
good idea. When it comes to generating code, we also need to consider
how it weakens the idea of copyleft.
1. Public AI is AI as public infrastructure like highways, water, or
electricity. An example of Public AI is https://publicai.co, which is
funded by Mozilla, the Future of Life Institute, and the Center for
Cultural Innovation. It also complies with Open Source AI definition
by OSI (https://opensource.org/ai). For AI to be accessible to people,
it has to be available easily to people and not for profit
collaborations between multiple organizations and public funding is
essential to keep it sustainable.
2. Public AI must use Free Software models.
3. At this point, we don't want to insist on training data being
freely available, similar to how we don't insist on Free Hardware
Designs. The challenges to practically being able to use the available
data should be factored in. Similar to how costly it would be to
produce hardware from Free Hardware Designs, even when training data
is available, huge computing power is required to use it practically.
4. Translations generated by Public AI can be accepted.
5. Code / documentation generated by Public AI can also be accepted if
it preserves share alike / copyleft conditions of original code used
in training.
---updated proposal---
I'd need seconds if people feel we need an option for allowing Public
AI/Open Source AI. This would be closer to proposal A in practice, but
could become more useful when the Free Software models mature and
produce better results than currently.
I could also get some help in making the draft better.
I have been away from the discussion for a few days, but is it on
purpose that this proposal does not shed a single word on AI assisted
coding or bugfinding/fixing?
Will that mean that AI assisted work on the actual code is freely
allowed or fully forbidden?
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
