Alejandro Colomar [off-list ref] writes:

Hi Carlos,

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 12:03:07PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

quoted

quoted

In v4, I've added a paragraph clarifying that AI assistive tools are
also included in the bad.

Isn't this the *opposite* of Gentoo's policy and QEMU's policy?

It is the opposite of what Gentoo claims their policy says.  But it's
what my read of their policy says (and I'm not alone there, as the same
interpretation was mentioned in libc-alpha@).  They should clarify their
policy if they don't mean what it says.

I already said we plan on it. I thought that was pretty clear.

quoted

We should base the contribution policy on things we can objectively
measure and claim.

Rejecting AI content in contributions is objective and measurable
since you can't attest the DCO clearly with this content.

Rejecting AI content would follow the first concern, but the second and
third concerns would be entirely ignored by a policy that permits AI
static analyzers.

It is hard in my mind to justify rejecting TTS or similar that may be
based on AI.

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..faab2df1b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING.d/ai

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+Name
+	AI - artificial intelligence policy
+
+Description
+	It is expressly forbidden to contribute to this project any
+	content that has been created with the assistance of AI tools.

This is OK, the forbiddance is on the created content.

	"created *with the assistance* of AI tools"

If I write some code, and iterate over it by passing it through static
analyzers and editing as appropriate, I'd say the code has been created
with the assistance of those tools.

Let's consider this example from The Lord of the Rings.  Did Celebrimbor
create the three Elven rings with assistance of Sauron?  Sauron did not
produce the rings, but it influenced the author enough to introduce
vulnerabilities in the rings.

quoted

quoted

+
+	This also includes AI assistive tools used in the contributing
+	process, even if such tools do not generate the contributed
+	code.

I object strongly to this paragraph.

It is the *opposite* of what Gentoo's policy intended.

This is policy over-reach into the lives of contributors.

Cheers,
Alex