On Mon, 12 Oct 2026 at 08:54, Richard Sandiford <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dominic P <[email protected]> writes: > > Richard Sandiford <[email protected]> writes: > >> What kind of assistance did it provide? > > > > While working on vectorisation, Claude spotted a preexisting bug. I > > agreed, the patch was created, and Claude ran the tests for me. I have > > reviewed Claude's work at every stage. > > Ok, thanks. The use of the passive tense kind-of leaves open the question: > was any of the patch produced using Claude, or was it all your own work? > My understanding of the AI policy is that changes outside of the testsuite > need to be authored entirely by a human (unless the patch is trivial). > > In other words, it's ok (AIUI) for someone to use AI to detect flaws and > create testcases for those flaws, and for that person to then go off and > write a fix without the help of AI. But using AI to write the fix is out > of bounds. > > I realise the policy somewhat incentivises people to lie about the use > of AI, but... > In this particular case Claude suggested the solution while I was working on something else. I reviewed the solution and was unable to come up with a better solution. My understanding is that small amounts of code are fine if they have been reviewed. If you feel this isn't within the policy then we can drop it and leave the bug as is. Dominic
