It depends how and to what extent AI is used in a contribution so we probably have to make a decision on a case by case basis. Note that ASF already provides some guidelines on how/when AI can be used [1]. Obviously, using AI for generating lots of "new" code is quite risky and quite impractical to verify copyrights so it should be avoided.
[1] https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 6:12 AM Dmitry Sysolyatin <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > >
