Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: define policy forbidding use of "AI" / LLM code generators

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 04:56:28PM +0200, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:35, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:40:26AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > There has been an explosion of interest in so called "AI" (LLM)
> > > code generators in the past year or so. Thus far though, this is
> > > has not been matched by a broadly accepted legal interpretation
> > > of the licensing implications for code generator outputs. While
> > > the vendors may claim there is no problem and a free choice of
> > > license is possible, they have an inherent conflict of interest
> > > in promoting this interpretation. More broadly there is, as yet,
> > > no broad consensus on the licensing implications of code generators
> > > trained on inputs under a wide variety of licenses.
> > > 
> > > The DCO requires contributors to assert they have the right to
> > > contribute under the designated project license. Given the lack
> > > of consensus on the licensing of "AI" (LLM) code generator output,
> > > it is not considered credible to assert compliance with the DCO
> > > clause (b) or (c) where a patch includes such generated code.
> > > 
> > > This patch thus defines a policy that the QEMU project will not
> > > accept contributions where use of "AI" (LLM) code generators is
> > > either known, or suspected.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  docs/devel/code-provenance.rst | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst 
> > > b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst
> > > index b4591a2dec..a6e42c6b1b 100644
> > > --- a/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst
> > > +++ b/docs/devel/code-provenance.rst
> > > @@ -195,3 +195,43 @@ example::
> > >    Signed-off-by: Some Person <some.person@example.com>
> > >    [Rebased and added support for 'foo']
> > >    Signed-off-by: New Person <new.person@example.com>
> > > +
> > > +Use of "AI" (LLM) code generators
> > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > +
> > > +TL;DR:
> > > +
> > > +  **Current QEMU project policy is to DECLINE any contributions
> > > +  which are believed to include or derive from "AI" (LLM)
> > > +  generated code.**
> > > +
> > > +The existence of "AI" (`Large Language Model 
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model>`__
> > > +/ LLM) code generators raises a number of difficult legal questions, a
> > > +number of which impact on Open Source projects. As noted earlier, the
> > > +QEMU community requires that contributors certify their patch submissions
> > > +are made in accordance with the rules of the :ref:`dco` (DCO). When a
> > > +patch contains "AI" generated code this raises difficulties with code
> > > +provenence and thus DCO compliance.
> > > +
> > > +To satisfy the DCO, the patch contributor has to fully understand
> > > +the origins and license of code they are contributing to QEMU. The
> > > +license terms that should apply to the output of an "AI" code generator
> > > +are ill-defined, given that both training data and operation of the
> > > +"AI" are typically opaque to the user. Even where the training data
> > > +is said to all be open source, it will likely be under a wide variety
> > > +of license terms.
> > > +
> > > +While the vendor's of "AI" code generators may promote the idea that
> > > +code output can be taken under a free choice of license, this is not
> > > +yet considered to be a generally accepted, nor tested, legal opinion.
> > > +
> > > +With this in mind, the QEMU maintainers does not consider it is
> > > +currently possible to comply with DCO terms (b) or (c) for most "AI"
> > > +generated code.
> > > +
> > > +The QEMU maintainers thus require that contributors refrain from using
> > > +"AI" code generators on patches intended to be submitted to the project,
> > > +and will decline any contribution if use of "AI" is known or suspected.
> > > +
> > > +Examples of tools impacted by this policy includes both GitHub CoPilot,
> > > +and ChatGPT, amongst many others which are less well known.
> > 
> > 
> > So you called out these two by name, fine, but given "AI" is in scare
> > quotes I don't really know what is or is not allowed and I don't know
> > how will contributors know.  Is the "AI" that one must not use
> > necessarily an LLM?  And how do you define LLM even? Wikipedia says
> > "general-purpose language understanding and generation".
> > 
> > 
> > All this seems vague to me.
> > 
> > 
> > However, can't we define a simpler more specific policy?
> > For example, isn't it true that *any* automatically generated code
> > can only be included if the scripts producing said code
> > are also included or otherwise available under GPLv2?
> 
> The following definition makes sense to me:
> 
> - Automated codegen tool must be idempotent.
> - Automated codegen tool must not use statistical modelling.

As a casual reader, I would find this somewhat unclear to interpet
and relate to.

> I'd remove all AI or LLM references. These are non-specific, colloquial and
> in the case of `AI`, non-technical. This policy should apply the same to a
> Markov chain code generator.

The fact that they are colloaquial is, IMHO, a good thing is it makes
the policy relatable to the casual reader who hears the terms "AI" and
"LLM" in technical press articles/blogs/etc all over the place.

I would have considered "Markov chain code generator" to fall under the
"AI" reference, since "AI" has defacto become a general purpose term
that covers a wierd variety of underlying technologies.

With regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|