On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 12:02 PM Matthew Brett via NumPy-Discussion < [email protected]> wrote:
> > Ralf pointed out one benefit - that we are not seen to disapprove of > the chosen workflows of our fellow developers. I think this is a > weak argument. Please, read and reason more carefully. That was right below a principle "honor copyright". One does not invalidate or contradict the other. > So, accepting large AI-generated PRs would be a significant threat to > copyright You have a good point in your arguments about copyright somewhere, but you're making it very poorly, verbosely, and with too much confidence when using words like "obviously". It's easy to come up again with examples for why a "large AI-generated PR" isn't copyrightable. E.g., filling holes in test coverage, say for nan's, empty arrays, or noncontiguous arrays. Such an effort involves tedious boilerplate tests with no copyrightable content, and we'd happily outsource that to a tool, and may be thousands of lines of code. For large PRs with intellectually stimulating and copyrightable code, there is also a gray zone where the human does most of the thinking, outlines the solution while stubbing out a lot of details, and then lets a tool fill in the details. That might all be fine too - it depends. The thing to be done here is to find understandable and pragmatic wording for a policy that discourages and lets us reject the undesirable usage of AI tools, while not hindering valid usage. Being overly broad and moralizing with inactionable wording isn't helpful. Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ 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]
