Am 31.05.26 um 22:23 schrieb Dan Eble:
Hello Dan,
probably this refers also to me so i guess i need to throw in some things.
There was recently a thread on AI-generated documentation:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2026-05/msg00025.html
---
Now, I want to ask whether anyone sees any issue with merging
AI-generated program code. This is somewhat urgent in the sense that
we have such an MR in draft, though of course we could delay it until
there is certainty. I just wouldn't want the uncertainty to last so
long that a capable contributor gets frustrated and leaves.
As least for the one MR draft from my side there is enough reasons for
frustration already, but the project taking time to read and evaluate
the proposed code would never be a reason for frustration. Except maybe
if it comes to decades ;-)
To my knowledge (and I have been paying only minimal attention), the
FSF views AI-assisted contributions to GNU projects as potentially
problematic but has not established a policy.
If ideology guidance is needed if would chime in with the well known
opinion of Linus Torvalds to that matter.
As a reviewer, I strongly desire two things:
1. openness about the origin of the code I'm reviewing
2. accountability of the human submitter (not reviewers)
for the code that is merged
For the MR that is in draft now, there were tells in the patch, but I
had to ask the submitter twice before he confirmed that it was
"AI-assisted." To streamline this in the future, I propose
configuring a template for default MR descriptions something like this:
"I had to ask twice" is an interesting point here, when the inital
proposal came with a clear question (which you confirmed to have
understood, which i had to ask many many times and never got an answer,
maybe apart from an implicit answer which i could project into the lines
of this email.
##### Description
<!-- Describe your motivation and your work briefly
to orient reviewers. If you have not described
your commits well, go back and do that first. -->
##### Question
What percentage of this work is AI-generated? <!-- 0-100 -->
Do you think that would effectively address that specific concern?
No. It gives zero insight into point 2 from above, which i can see as
the only valid point here. Where it has ZERO relevance how code was put
together, no matter if it is bad manual work, clueless copying from
stackoverflow, throwing dices or clueless vibe coding. Or working code wtf.
---
Another situation arises at the confluence of these things:
* Anyone with middle-class money and some patience can
rather easily submit a high-line-count patch that solves
a narrowly defined problem and passes regression tests.
If you think a problem was solved in an inefficient or over complicated
way this should be evaluated. Where it has ZERO relevance how code was
put together, no matter if it is bad manual work, clueless copying from
stackoverflow, throwing dices or clueless vibe coding. Or working code wtf.
* Unless the submitter first examines the generated code
carefully to confirm that it aligns with his intent more
broadly, that kind of generated code demands even more
of reviewers' time and attention than before.
Assuming that a submitter who said his code was "AI assisted" (where
most of the assistance was in getting some kind of an overview over info
scattered around in 3k MRs and 7k issues) did blindly generate anything
and did not even care reading it, or did not care at all about if it
"aligns with his intent" is a blunt insult. No matter if this addresses
me or some future submitters. Where it has ZERO relevance how code was
put together, no matter if it is bad manual work, clueless copying from
stackoverflow, throwing dices or clueless vibe coding. Or working code wtf.
I need to assume you mean me, as after you got my statement, that there
was "AI-assistance" (not even talking about generation per se) you never
asked a single line in terms of your valid point 2 form above.
So what's the point then?
Stale academic AI hate?
Or something personal?
Frustration maximized.
Arno
* The number of active reviewers (those who have been
leaving comments) is currently small.
* Our current "countdown" policy effectively treats
silence as approval, and moves changes forward as long
as there are no objections within a certain time.
Therefore, I suggest adopting a new policy: AI-generated program code
does not automatically move forward without a human reviewer's
acknowledgment. It should be full acknowledgment, not, for example,
"C++ LGTM; don't know about Scheme."
It would fall to the "patch meister" to help people follow this policy
and to allow sensible exceptions, such as if a contributor with a good
record vouches for the quality of his own AI-generated submission in
an area where he has developed expertise.
---
Is there any other guidance that we active contributors should follow
when dealing with AI-generated submissions? The floor is open.
Thanks,
