Hi, On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 2:02 PM Ilhan Polat <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think we will not convince each other in this subject. My position is still > the same; > > Ignoring the actual stealing done by these companies and then holding each > other accountable for copyright is a no-go for me, using it further to > resolve copyright issues, and thus washing it clean, is doubly so. I will not > entertain that option and that's my personal position. I don't expect others > to take this position. Defending copyright protection and ignoring the > largest copyrighted elephant in the room does not seem a sound argument to > me. Moreover, arguing over the tool as if it is oblivious and neutral is just > factually incorrect, there are companies behind these tools. The technology > is undoubtedly impressive and very useful, however the current arrangement of > it is built upon legally unsound basis with very shady practices. Therefore I > refuse to philosophize over it as a free-agent with shortcomings. In my > opinion, the possible thing we can do is at least be defensive and if we feel > like it, take advantage of LLMs to use it for automating mundane tasks to > save time that FOSS maintainers definitely lack which is what I have been > doing with LAPACK translation as I mentioned above. I still go over them line > by line which takes insane amount of time though much shorter than writing it > myself. > > So "No AI contribution is allowed" is a valid take for me if that would be > the policy. Or "we will use common sense and make opinionated decisions, for > trivial and otherwise laborious tasks we don't care but for involved bits, we > won't touch it". It is also fine.
I'm not sure we are really disagreeing here - I think you're pointing out something that you've made clear from the work you're doing - that for mechanical tasks, where an expert can check the results carefully, AI is a sensible use, and we have less concern about copyright. So I agree, either policy would be fine with me. And I agree, either would be preferable to the compromise that I'm suggesting for not-trivial / mechanical AI-generated code, where we try to work out some procedure whereby the contributor can screen for copyright violations. Cheers, Matthew _______________________________________________ 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]
