On Mon, 12 Oct 2026, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 10/12/26 5:49 AM, Richard Kenner wrote: > >> 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.
The question is where taking advice literally crosses a boundary. > > Yup, that's the model I had in mind. > Right. Or let's take Aldy's case from Cauldron (over-simplifying) > > Ask the LLM to find 5 ways to solve X, implement and benchmark those > approaches. Then the developer steps in to review the data and select a > general approach. Developer goes off and does their own implementation. So > the LLM is writing code as a tool to explore what paths forward might look > like. The developer doesn't use any of that code -- but the question is are > they tainted by the LLM code if they looked at it during the process? IMO there's legal questions we cannot really answer and there's common sense. Taking - length_factor = size_int (vect_factor); + length_factor = size_int (vect_factor - 1); how can you not literally do the very same upon suggestion from LLM or a friend? For me LLMs regularly do, when asked to root-cause a problem, also provide a suggested fix in form of a patch or even a full commit dependent on their mood. If said patch/commit is the very same thing I'd repeat myself manually I'd be stupid to go through that exercise, no? My common legal-sense also says that changes like above are obviously a derivative of GCC and not a derivative of sth else and thus "legally insignificant". But yes, I'm not really happy with the wording of our AI policy. Richard. -- Richard Biener <[email protected]> SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany; GF: Stefan Gaiser, Jochen Jaser, Abhinav Puri; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)
