[email protected] (Richard Kenner) writes: >>> 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). > > I don't think the policy was that clear. > >> using AI to write the fix is out of bounds. > > I think that's clear. > >> In other words, it's ok (AIUI) for someone to use AI to detect flaws and >> create testcases for those flaws > > ... and that's clear. > >> and for that person to then go off and write a fix without the help >> of AI. > > I think that's not really addressed by the policy and I think is too > strict. Let's suppose you've done the above and an AI model identified a > problem. If you next ask it "how do you recommend fixing it?" and it gives > a general description of what to do and you do it, I don't see any > potential problem. For example, if it says "I'd write a predicate that > tests XYZ and call it here" and you do it, the code was still > human-written.
Ah, yeah, if the advice isn't overly prescriptive and doesn't include actual code then I agree it sounds like that would be within bounds. In other words, using an AI tool can fill the same kind of role as asking a colleague for advice or talking on irc. Thanks, Richard
