I'm pleased that you've started this discussion.
;TL;DR; I like the principles embodied in your proposed policy and would
defer to the developers for the exact wording.
I am a long term follower of this list and so I am aware of the strongly
held views on AI by some contributors.
It seems to me that, because AI is a technology that is very rapidly
evolving, our responses to it (ethical, legal, regulatory, technical,
etc) will also evolve but at different speeds. This means that any
policy we try to write may well be out of sync before long. But that
does not mean that we shouldn't try to agree on a policy, just accept
that it may need to morph. And that's what makes this difficult, a
policy is supposed to be long term but we're dealing with a fast
changing situation.
As a user of GnuCash, I personally take the position that the custodians
of the code are the developers, for whose work, dedication and diligence
I am enormously grateful. I would hope, and the evidence from this list
supports this, that the developers seek input and listen to the user
community in formulating their priorities for the application. In short,
I don't see a role for me in demanding that the developers should or
should not embrace AI.
I use AI as a tool a lot. I have found that, like a hammer, it is good
at some things and lousy at others. Also, I am learning how to use it
and making mistakes along the way. But, like you David T, I am not a coder.
Thank you for starting this discussion. Looking forward to reading
others' take on this fascinating technology in general and the policy
question in particular.
On 14/08/2026 08:31, David T. via gnucash-user wrote:
Long message here. Sorry in advance!
;TLDR; The AI policy page needs edits which I feel unqualified to make, but I
think a discussion by the group as a whole is warranted. Delete if you're not
interested.
In another thread, the GnuCash AI policy (wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/AI_Policy) was
cited as a concern for script consideration. I was unaware of this page and
consulted it.
I appreciate the effort that John Ralls has put into this page, and the amount
of welcome detail included therein.
However, I see a number of areas that concern me about the page, and I think
that the larger group should examine the page and weigh in.
First off: there is, actually, no policy stated on the page. The Opening
Section raises a number of legitimate concerns regarding AI use and ethics,
which strongly suggest that the GnuCash team does not want AI code included.
But then the Other Projects section presents information from numerous other
MAJOR open source projects that cover a very wide range of AI acceptance. This
section in essence undermines whatever position may have been the team's
intention.
In other words, the two sections make it difficult for a reader to articulate
what GnuCash's policy is or might be. That needs to be fixed, most likely with
a GnuCash Policy section that unambiguously states what the team will or will
not accept. See below.
Another concern I have is that the opening section includes a range of concerns
that are fundamentally different in their focus. I think some consideration
should be made as to how these are presented or argued. Perhaps, for example,
quality and skills could be grouped and addressed together, with a focus on
results for GnuCash code, while the legal issues could focus on GnuCash
liability.
I won't quibble about the section about quality, except to note that bad quality code
can come from any source--including and especially from human contributors. One
reason I don't contribute code anywhere is because I SUCK at coding, and my code is
terrible. I'll also note that the tools have advanced at a staggering pace, to the
point where Linus himself is embracing their use in the Linux kernel.
(<https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/CAHk-=wi4zc+ze8e+p3tmv8ttg_80kzsz1syl9anbtmeh5z4...@mail.gmail.com/>)
I have no qualms about the provenance piece. That's clearly an area that John
has a lot of expertise!
I personally don't have the legal expertise to judge the conclusions of the
copyrightability of AI code, and while I respect John's greater knowledge and
experience in this area, I question whether anyone can tell where these legal
boundaries lie, and where they will end up.
While the assertion that AI generated code cannot be copyrighted is accurate at
this time, I suspect the boundaries on this will move substantially when the
legal world gets involved. For instance, I guarantee that someone will file a
case claiming that their code deserves protection based on some percentage of
their own oversight and contribution, and the courts will issue some kind of
decision that will piss someone else off, who will then appeal, etc. And
eventually, the superannuated fuddy-duddies in Washington will call for
hearings (some one of them will angrily insist that they need to see this
Claude guy in the witness box Im-me-di-ate-ly!) and eventually create a badly
crafted law to establish how copyright should apply in these situations. But
I'm definitely not in a position to know where this ends up.
Moving on, the question of skill development is fair, but one that is much
larger than the GnuCash project, and I question whether it's relevant for
GnuCash's AI policy page. To put this in perspective, college students around
the world are questioning whether they should stick with Comp Sci as a major,
given the market trends. And while it's in GnuCash's interest to have skilled
coders contributing to the project, see my note above about quality code. AI
isn't necessarily the problem; lazy people who think they can get complex code
handed to them without doing their own work are.
I personally agree with the issues regarding LLMs as netizens.
Because I am Unqualified But Opinionated (UBO), I'll offer here a suggested
addition to the wiki page. It could go at the top or the bottom, as appropriate:
---------
GnuCash AI Policy
Given the concerns and issues raised here, as well as the overall uncertainty
about how AI-generated code fits in computing universe, the development team
for GnuCash has determined that code contributed to the project should contain
only code that the human contributor affirms is as accurate, error-free, and
efficient as they can determine.
Ideally, this code will not include AI-generated code, but if it does, the
submission MUST:
1) State clearly the use of AI-generated code.
2) Name the AI tools and specific prompts used.
3) Identify the extent of AI-generated code.
4) State workflows used to evaluate and process AI-generated code.
Finally, the use of AI-generated code will likely result in additional scrutiny
of such code to verify its quality, accuracy, and legitimacy and may result in
outright rejection of such submissions.
----------
David T.
_______________________________________________
gnucash-user mailing list
[email protected]
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
-----
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
--
Graham McAlister
_______________________________________________
gnucash-user mailing list
[email protected]
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
-----
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
