@Adam Monsen <[email protected]> ... is the debate really over? I'm not really following this whole inevitability thing... do we really think we master these tools like using an IDE and are confident of the outcome...? I'd argue then why even have points 2. and 3. in the policy... if the use of the AI tools seems to be unavoidable then the enforcement of these rules will be difficult at least or impossible.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 7:08 PM Fred Amaral via dev <[email protected]> wrote: > in the old world, was taking a snippet from elsewhere a copyright > infringement? (really a question, dont know). > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 12:56 PM Aleksandar Vidakovic < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> ... this sounds like there is a standard... there is not. This is already >> hard to achieve with classic development... there are a ton of different >> approaches and (actual) standards (development on embedded components in >> the automotive industry and similar)... to really make an informed decision >> here we would need to make sure that two people that run the same tool >> setup create the same results... I'd say: impossible, but happy to change >> my mind if you point to an example where this ever happened with AI tools. >> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 6:17 PM Prashant Rahulkar < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think we should adopt the best industry framework to integrate with >>> the Development agent. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Prashant Rahulkar. >>> >>> On Tue, 1 Sept 2026 at 17:10, Ádám Sághy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> >>>> My two cents: >>>> >>>> >>>> Since AI is already being used, having rules and a playbook would be >>>> beneficial to avoid any misunderstandings. >>>> >>>> >>>> Considering its widespread adoption across various fields such as >>>> development, debugging, testing, brainstorming, and PR reviewing, we don’t >>>> need to debate whether the Apache or Fineract community wants it. It’s >>>> already in use, and contributors will continue to use it (*I don’t >>>> believe there’s a way to prevent it, nor should it be!*). Let’s focus >>>> on determining appropriate boundaries and its intended use. >>>> >>>> >>>> Disclaimer: I am not up to date with latest “recommendations” of Apache >>>> on this topic. >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Adam Saghy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 1, 2026, at 8:53 AM, Sujan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Aman, >>>> >>>> +1 to having some clear boundaries around AI-assisted development. >>>> >>>> I think there are valid positives and negatives here. AI can definitely >>>> help with productivity, debugging, and refactoring, but contributors should >>>> still understand and take ownership of the changes they submit. If PRs >>>> become mostly AI-generated, it also makes them much harder to review >>>> effectively. >>>> >>>> I think a lightweight, project-specific policy would be a good middle >>>> ground rather than completely discouraging AI or allowing unrestricted use. >>>> >>>> On Tue, 1 Sept, 2026, 11:42 VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ, < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Aman, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for starting this important topic. >>>>> >>>>> *+1 to starting a dedicated discussion and adopting a lightweight, >>>>> project-specific AI policy.* >>>>> >>>>> I support the direction because AI-assisted development is already >>>>> happening (it is very noticeable this year before the GSOC and the >>>>> increasing numbers of PRs submitted and merged) and clear, practical >>>>> guidelines (for developers and reviewers) will help us benefit from it >>>>> without creating problems for maintainers or the project’s legal posture. >>>>> An optional disclosure approach plus a short *AI_POLICY.md* inspired >>>>> by Apache Fory’s is a sensible starting point. It can be adapted for >>>>> Apache >>>>> Fineract rather than copying it wholesale. >>>>> >>>>> To address the concerns raised earlier (including those from Aleks) I >>>>> think is good to stay aligned with the ASF Generative Tooling Guidance >>>>> https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> >>>>> Victor Romero >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> El lun, 31 ago 2026 a las 23:44, Aman Mittal (< >>>>> [email protected]>) escribió: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> I want to revive the discussion based on >>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/xxoqt3jn8trhwo1lnxjy46r1dkolfg1h >>>>>> >>>>>> and Concerns raised by Aleks in >>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/oq25gyjsx0wry4jf58odds9z92pfx6bj >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding the usage and guidelines of AI, I think we need to discuss >>>>>> AI-assisted development a bit more, so I'm creating this dedicated thread >>>>>> on the dev list. >>>>>> >>>>>> As per my understanding, using AI is fine if contributors understand >>>>>> their work and can explain their reasoning for each line. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, I'm thinking we can start with an optional disclosure policy on >>>>>> that. >>>>>> I think we can add a AI_POLICY.md for each repo. One policy we can >>>>>> take inspiration from is >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/fory/blob/main/AI_POLICY.md >>>>>> While we do not need to copy it entirely, we can take inspiration >>>>>> from it and modify it for FINERACT and all the repos based on community >>>>>> feedback. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suggest that it should include Commonly used AI setups that >>>>>> contributors did not declare in an AI usage disclosure. >>>>>> >>>>>> What does the community think about this? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Aman >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>
