All - +1 Good to have this discussion. Thanks to Victor, Alex, Adam, Aman, Sujan, etc for the thoughtful exchange. +1 to Paul's (Tofunmi) suggestions of improvements to Agents.md (more needed there, let's improve incrementally)
These discussions mirror some of the broader Apache community discussions about Responsible AI (Rai) Watch this space: https://rai.apache.org/best-practices.html (this is a DRAFT starting point) https://rai.apache.org/ai-generated-code.html (again DRAFT) As mentioned, https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html. As to the always cloudy crystal ball reading, here is some commentary: * some version of LLMs are likely going to be with us for a while, leading to some unknown state of things in 6 months, 12 months, 5 years? I suppose this could range from *restricted* *prompted assistance* to *automated assistance* to *pervasive Assistants* to *Autonomously Orchestrated Agents* (??) * legal regimes are slower by an order of magnitude, e.g. The dust may settle later on IP infringements and regulatory changes are under discussion. * as with most things at the ASF, many PMCs are considering this topic. As usual, ASF leadership often looks to the PMCs to figure things out through experimentation, developing good practices and discussion. +1 ...for us to keep having this discussion and also to move things along with all due diligence. For now, according to my reading of the members list discussions and the ASF Policy, if you use AI tooling you are allowed to contribute but must abide by the letter of the Contributor Agreement you signed. See again the draft guidance above for Scenario 3 . For me, some areas of development and documentation are more amenable to these "statistically valid but unhinged inference models". I suggest we start using more AI deliberately on the core fineract code base but with shared knowledge flowing in email and jira, and updating the `agents.md` file with skill development shared. - documentation improvements and expansion, - functional test coverage (Cucumber tests) - API validations - bug identification - triage of bug reports Then, we can report on how we performed those activities, including insights into following best practices (again see RAI above and likely evolving rule sets). My belief is that the enduring aspects of the Fineract community are not the code but the broad and varied Community knowledge and perspectives. Thanks, - James On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 1:15 PM Aleksandar Vidakovic < [email protected]> wrote: > ... I'm not sure if I follow your train of thought @Fred Amaral > <[email protected]> ... are we for licenses or against... or sometimes > yes when convenient and not when inconvenient? Concerning inevitability: > there nothing inevitable about it, just a couple of examples: > > - Klarna: > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2025/05/18/business-tech-news-klarna-reverses-on-ai-says-customers-like-talking-to-people/ > - Microsoft: > > https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/microsoft-cut-engineers-off-ai-093500532.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWFyY2guYnJhdmUuY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAC-CVBtokD1ka9SceOJU0K-2dR_3o9GYc2Lr8VV25nLzF9RXF4k-8QLBY_f3bbhgfMg7yXEPqK1lyF3E3C2pT_Fh_gsUbzypqFCK5l0HkE5pyxkART6QSGBzx2lS3EEBKzwnc425MgKoPxwYu2CYGl0my9jtrFf6gRU78A6ndj_t > - Amazon: > > https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/amazon-tells-staff-to-stop-using-ai-just-to-use-ai-after-shutting-down-its-token-leaderboard-11780098151409.html > - Uber: > > https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jun/3/uber-capping-internal-use-ai-coding-software-blowing-budget/ > - Google: https://www.engadget.com/2225849/google-shuts-down-alphafold/ > and > > https://www.semafor.com/article/08/27/2026/alphabet-stock-sheds-700b-as-ai-bills-climb > - ... in general: > > https://medium.com/@avigoldfinger/55-of-ceos-who-fired-people-because-of-ai-already-regret-it-d54487e3cbe3 > - depending on your region: > https://tokenstead.ai/guides/eu-ai-act-first-enforcement-security-rfis > > ... but then you have also: > > - Google (this time on the other side of the fence): > > https://www.gulte.com/trends/395721/brace-for-ai-or-leave-google-tells-employees > - Linux: > > https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/07/linus-torvalds-to-critics-of-ai-coding-in-linux-fork-it-or-just-walk-away > > Just to say that there is variability... these things are not set in stone > like the 10 commandments... which one of those scenarios will win in the > end? I don't know, maybe common sense prevails and the two biggest > providers will just run out of money, but I'm as good as the next person > with predictions (read: I'm bad at it). Just to say: claiming inevitability > is as wrong as my capability to predict the future. > > Maybe a suggestion: can we lay the inevitability argument to rest... at > least in this thread? Don't think it helps too much finding some common > ground (it kinda suggests that all is done). In a couple of years we will > all know if this was inevitable or not, right now this is just everyone > guessing. > > So... what are the concrete rules...? > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 8:35 PM Fred Amaral <[email protected]> wrote: > >> thanks, alek. my point will always be: these LLMs ARE TRAINED on private >> data. there is no single one that has not broken out to media regarding >> that. however, the capacity of someone claiming propriety over a snippet of >> code within an open source codebase is clearly zero. snippets of code are >> not a codebase. it does not carry a stamp. >> i dont like to mention (cause seems to be an argument of authority), but >> the last messages from linus paint very well the scenario: it is inevitable. >> >> disclaimer: i'm biased, since i invest a lot on hardware to run LLMs on >> my own. my take is more to try to show that it's not a discussion about >> opening the can. it's already opened. >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 1:28 PM Aleksandar Vidakovic < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> @Fred Amaral <[email protected]> the difference is that when you copy >>> and paste it's YOUR (the human's) choice and responsibility. If your >>> argument is that you can copy and paste while ignoring the rules then this >>> is certainly true, but even if no one knows then YOU still know that >>> something was not right; if no one detects you then congratulations, but if >>> someone does then you are the last to hold the bag. >>> >>> When you delegate all this to a machine then you are in a whole >>> different space: when you copy and paste you know what's going on, when an >>> LLM does this for you (and it does... however indirectly) then you don't >>> know if something wrong happened (was the LLM trained with GPL licensed >>> data?), but it doesn't exempt you either (see Adam's proposed policy point >>> no. 2); so how can you be accountable if you don't know how the results >>> were put together? OpenAI isn't (or doesn't want to be, see disclaimer). >>> Try to open 2 separate prompts and enter the same (non-trivial) text... is >>> the result reproducible? Claiming to not know doesn't make this problem go >>> away suddenly. >>> >>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
