On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 10:57 AM Charles R Harris via NumPy-Discussion < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 10:23 AM David Cournapeau via NumPy-Discussion < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I know there has been discussions in the past on AI-generated >> contributions. Is there a current policy for NumPy ? E.g. do we request >> that contributors are the "sole contributor" to the written code, or do we >> allow code written by AI as long as it follows the usual quality >> requirements ? >> >> Context of my question: ~18 months ago I started in some spare time >> writing an ARPACK-replacement in numpy/scipy during scipy sprint. At that >> time, I used ChatGPT for the "research part" only: literature review, >> explain to me some existing BSD implementation in Julia for points I could >> not understand. I implemented the python code myself. There is still quite >> a bit of work needed to be a viable replacement for ARPACK. >> >> Seeing the progress of the AI tooling in my team at work, and how I >> myself use those tools for other hobby projects, I believe I could finish >> that replacement very quickly with those tools today. But I don't want to >> "taint" the work if this would risk the chances of integration into scipy >> proper. >> >> > My personal take is "allow code written by AI as long as it follows the > usual quality requirements ?". I don't see that we have much choice going > forward, the tools are improving, and I see some top programmers picking up > on them. It is the future. We should limit > slop, as it takes up reviewer time, but clean code is clean code. As long > as references and such are checked to be authentic, I'm happy. > > I don't think we have a formal position at this point. > It’s probably time to adopt one and/or add an AGENTS.md file to the repo. I mostly agree with Chuck that there’s mot much we can do to avoid it. People will use the tools and not disclose, so any copyright issues will happen no matter what policy we have. I’m nervous about subtle inconsistencies and hallucinations, especially from contributions that are mostly vibe-coded. To me, that means the code needs much more careful review than human-written contributions because the nature of the errors made are different. > Chuck > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman3//lists/numpy-discussion.python.org > Member address: [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3//lists/numpy-discussion.python.org Member address: [email protected]
