If AI is used to search for answers to project-related questions (although one should be careful here when there is a lot of legacy), for self-validation, to help find a solution, or for translating from one language to another (specifically a 1-to-1 translation), I don’t see anything wrong with that.
However, I am quite skeptical about using it to implement solutions. This is up to each individual developer whether they use it or not as long as it is not clearly visible that the code (which is sometimes very obvious) or the comment is AI-generated (by “generation” I mean not translating one’s own text from one language to another 1-to-1, but actual generation). In such cases, it becomes unclear whether the developer actually understands what they have written, and whether it is worth continuing the review, the discussion, and spending time on it. In the case of Apache Calcite, I have seen only once such a case. But in other projects, AI-generated issues and fixes sometimes reach the point of absurdity. On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 1:08 AM jensen <[email protected]> wrote: > Personally, I think using AI tools has its advantages; they often help us > quickly locate simple problems. For the Calcite community, we have many > experienced reviewers, and as long as we don't completely rely on AI tools > to review code, I think it's acceptable. As for contributors, it's best to > explain their thought process behind the changes (or provide good code > comments), and ideally, to demonstrate whether the changes are reasonable > (of course, new contributors may not be able to confirm the reasonableness > of their changes even without using AI). If these things can be done to a > certain extent, it will reduce the time and effort reviewers need to put in. > > > > Best regards, > > Zhen Chen > > ---- Replied Message ---- > | From | Mihai Budiu<[email protected]> | > | Date | 1/12/2026 06:03 | > | To | [email protected]<[email protected]> | > | Subject | Re: AI/LLM and Calcite contributions | > I personally do not care which tools have been used as long as the result > is arguably correct and reviewers that we trust can understand it. > > Mihai > > ________________________________ > From: Alessandro Solimando <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2026 12:22 PM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: AI/LLM and Calcite contributions > > Hello, > a recent discussion [1] made me realize that, as a community, we haven't > made a precise statement if LLM-assisted contributions should be accepted, > and in case how they should be handled. > > Dmitry cites [2] in the discussion (on the strict side of the spectrum), > while I have seen more nuanced statements in the Apache foundation like [3] > (fine as long as you understand and can justify all you submitted). > > I'd like to hear your opinions, and ideally update the contributors > guideline accordingly, when we reach consensus. > > Best regards, > Alessandro > > 1: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/4692#discussion_r2639007178 > 2: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy > 3: > > https://datafusion.apache.org/contributor-guide/index.html#ai-assisted-contributions >
