Kai Krakow <[email protected]> writes: > Am Mi., 11. März 2026 um 02:02 Uhr schrieb Eli Schwartz > <[email protected]>: >> >> On 3/10/26 8:23 PM, Kai Krakow wrote: >> > Am Di., 10. März 2026 um 16:55 Uhr schrieb Michał Górny >> > <[email protected]>: >> >> >> Our "AI policy" [2] covers only direct contributions to Gentoo. At the >> >> time, we did not consider it appropriate to start restricting what >> >> packages are added to Gentoo. Still, general rules apply and some of >> >> the recent packages are starting to raise concerns there. Hence I'm >> >> looking for your feedback. >> > >> > I think we cannot avoid that AI is somehow involved in any commits >> > ending up in Gentoo, be it ebuilds, or be it packages. I'd argue that >> > it is almost unavoidable for the common developer to have at least AI >> > completion running in the code editor. I say "almost" and "common", >> > because if someone really cares, they certainly *can* avoid that. >> >> >> It is banned by Council voted policy. If we cannot avoid it, that means >> users do it and then unethically lie and testify to Gentoo, >> >> """ >> This contribution has not been created with the assistance of Natural >> Language Processing artificial intelligence tools, in accordance with >> the AI policy. >> """ > > And I adhere to that for contributions to Gentoo. Such policies are in > place to be followed. And it's easy to do that by just not using an > editor which has any AI features. > > I just questioned how sure we can be to avoid it. And I agree: Yes > people can ignore that, and it should be justified as a lie. > > >> While it is pedantically true for you to say, it is physically possible >> people lie to us and not get caught -- that is not an excuse for saying >> "there is no point having a rule when people could lie and break the >> rule". And it doesn't mean lack of 100% enforcement means the policy is >> wrong and should be abolished. > > I didn't say "there is no point in having a rule". And the context > hasn't even been ebuilds alone. chardet or autobahn don't provide > ebuilds. So the context is source code. We cannot avoid that package > source code with AI involvement becomes part of the packages that > Gentoo ebuilds install. > > What's the scope of the Gentoo AI policy anyways? > > Yes, ebuilds. I clearly get that. That's not the question. > > What about code running Gentoo infrastructure? Or Gentoo tooling? > What's the scope of the AI policy regarding "contribution to Gentoo"? > Today, many packages have deep dependencies. It will be hard to avoid > code which has AI assisted code involved. The text from the wiki > doesn't really explain that to me: > >> This policy affects Gentoo contributions and the official Gentoo >> projects. It does not prohibit adding packages for AI-related >> software or software that is being developed with the help of such >> tools upstream. > > Yes, it says I can add packages to Gentoo which are about AI, or which > are developed using AI. Fine. That's easy. But a contribution to > Gentoo infrastructure goes deeper as such code becomes part of Gentoo > tooling and/or infrastructure and is no longer just a random package. > > Again, I don't want to say the rule is useless. I want to understand > it to act properly and *not* violate it. > > With that in mind, at least chardet is part of the infrastructure and > tooling, isn't it? >
(I don't think this is a common understanding of the rule.) > But I'm not sure if that should be discussed further here, and I'm > fine with leaving it as an open question to discuss somewhere else. > And I'm fine with being extra careful with getting involved in any > core tooling just to avoid violating any policy, and only contribute > when the policy applies a clearly defined scope, e.g. just > contributing ebuilds. I'm a bit surprised to hear this argument. I think it's obvious that if you wrote some script and it happened to use chardet (*) which is developed using AI but suppose it is otherwise unproblematic, that wouldn't count. You're also free to ask if you're unsure. (*) Of course, with the licencing situation now too being well-known, that would be ill-advised, so I'd be surprised if someone did that. > > > Thanks, > Kai
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
