On 2026-06-01 03:49, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
What percentage of this work is AI-generated? <!-- 0-100 -->
Do you think that would effectively address that specific concern?
Of course, since the number given will (according to your proposal)
influence how the MR is dealt with, we depend on getting an honest
answer to that question. I don't want to seem paranoid, but maybe it
would be wise to add - somewhere in the CG - a statement along the lines
of: Commits with non-disclosed AI-generated code get refused (or may get
reverted later).
I'd perceive that notice as unwelcoming. If the answer is missing we
could just draw attention to it gently. I'm sure someone will
eventually accidentally delete the question while editing their summary
and need just a nudge about it.
If we ever find something that shouldn't have been merged, we should
just revert it. We don't need to give notice.
In the discussions of the current MR I noticed the term "AI-assisted".
Maybe it would we a good idea to distinguish various kinds and degrees
of AI assistance: IIUC, not every way of using an LLM during development
leads to longer, coherent blocks of AI generated code.
Good point. I think it would be best if the question in the MR template
didn't demand a lot of thought to answer or interpret. I wouldn't want
people splitting hairs or making accusations like, "but you said 50%,
this is closer to 75%."
I suggested "AI-generated" because "AI-assisted" sounds broader than I
care about. I don't care if someone has used AI to analyze code and
explore solutions. I care about what I am reviewing. If it's generated
content that hasn't been under a critical eye yet, that's important.
--
Dan
