Hi, Divya Ranjan <[email protected]> writes:
> Cayetano Santos via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System > distribution." <[email protected]> writes: > >> In my opinion we should accept contributions from LLM’s, provided the >> origin of the code is clearly stated somehow (pr title, comment line, >> etc.). I don’t think this is something which could avoid, anyway. >> > > I don't think we should accept any contributions from LLMs, until FSF > has made it clear what their stance on the copyright situation > is. That has not been made clear, and this is the reason we do not > accept LLM generated code in Emacs core or ELPA as of now[0]. [...] I'm interested in what the FSF and their lawyers will have to say about it. I think it's important to see the nuances; I don't think the LLMs are good enough to author anything without any human refactoring/fixing, at least not that I saw in my experience, so a purely LLM-authored PR would probably not build/execute correctly. So what I expect we will see more instead is people relying on chatbots to get more insights, ideas of a solution, etc. Some code fragment will be produced but they will likely serve to guide the solution rather than be copied as whole. I think in these situations it's reasonable to assume the copyright holder remains the author of the change submitted, even if they got some guidance from an LLM to author it. I think it's unavoidable that this kind of LLM usage happens in the community (which mainstream search engine doesn't show some LLM-produced summary these days?), and I think a good thing we can do is ask from our contributors to be transparent about it, by adding a disclaimer when they've used an LLM to author their changes. It could be just a box to check in the PR template, or some git trailer, or both. -- Thanks, Maxim
