PR here for anyone interested: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/48952
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 at 09:56, Nic Crane <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Andrew, I really like how you spell out the reasoning around it, I > will see how we can incorporate some of those ideas > > On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 at 09:23, Andrew Lamb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > We have had repeated attempts at contributions by some folks who simply >> do not understand their generated code and when asked for clarification, >> have the LLM generate more incorrect commentary. It's very >> Dunning-Krueger >> and leads to lots of frustration all around. >> >> We saw this too in DataFusion and I was pleased with what we came up with >> for rationale about why it is not helpful[1]. Basically the reviewers are >> more efficient using the LLM tools directly and the contributor isn't >> learning anything either. >> >> Andrew >> >> >> [1]: >> >> https://datafusion.apache.org/contributor-guide/index.html#why-fully-ai-generated-prs-without-understanding-are-not-helpful >> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 12:48 PM R Tyler Croy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > (replies inline) >> > >> > On Sunday, January 18th, 2026 at 7:43 PM, Gang Wu <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > - Summitters should review all lines of generated code before creating >> > the >> > > PR to >> > > understand every piece of detail just like they are written by the >> > > submitters >> > > themselves. >> > > - AI tools are notorious for generating overly verbose comments, >> > unnecessary >> > > test cases, fixing test failures using wrong approaches, etc. Make >> sure >> > > these >> > > are checked and fixed. >> > > - Reviewers are humans, so please try to break down large PRs into >> > smaller >> > > ones to make reviewers' life easier to get PRs promptly reviewed. >> > >> > >> > Like others I think Nic's draft is a good one, I would like to offer >> some >> > thoughts as a maintainer (delta-rs) which has received increased >> > AI-assisted pull requests over the past six months. >> > >> > >> > The "PR may be closed without further review" statement I would strongly >> > encourage moving to the very beginning of the policy. I would also >> > encourage labels being used like "ai-assisted" to signal to other >> > contributors who may or may not wish to engage in reviewing potential >> slop. >> > >> > We have had repeated attempts at contributions by some folks who simply >> do >> > not understand their generated code and when asked for clarification, >> have >> > the LLM generate more incorrect commentary. It's very Dunning-Krueger >> and >> > leads to lots of frustration all around. >> > >> > Like most policies it's important to speak to those that are acting in >> > good faith but don't rely on everybody following the rules, and come up >> > with an agreed upon way to handle those that don't. >> > >> > >> > Either way I think it's good to ship! :) >> > >> > >> > >> > Cheers >> > >> > >> >
