> Personally, I wouldn't (as a maintainer)...
Especially since I know that many potential contributors may not have
English as their first language so stunted language / odd patterns are
not **always** an AI indicator, sometimes its just inexperience.
-- Rohit
On 7/4/24 3:03 PM, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
On 04/07/24 12:49, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
Sorry to top-post! But - I wanted to bring the discussion back to
licensing. I have great sympathy for the ecological and code-quality
concerns, but licensing is a separate question, and, it seems to me,
an urgent question.
The licensing issue is complex and it is very likely that it will not
get a definitive answer until a lawsuit centered around this issue is
litigated in court. There are several lawsuits involving similar
issues ongoing, but any resolution is likely to take several years.
Providing other, much more pragmatic and easier to gauge, reasons to
reject AI generated contributions, I was trying to sidestep the
licensing issue completely.
If there are other reasons why auto-generated contributions should be
rejected, there is no need to solve the much harder problem of
licensing: we don't want them regardless of the licensing issue.
Cheers,
Dan
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/
Member address: rgosw...@quansight.com
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/
Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
