Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] docs: define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 08:17:27AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 10:25 AM Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
 >> +
> >> +The increasing prevalence of AI code generators, most notably but not 
> >> limited
> >
> > More detail is needed on what an "AI code generator" is. Coding
> > assistant tools range from autocompletion to linters to automatic code
> > generators. In addition there are other AI-related tools like ChatGPT
> > or Gemini as a chatbot that can people use like Stackoverflow or an
> > API documentation summarizer.
> >
> > I think the intent is to say: do not put code that comes from _any_ AI
> > tool into QEMU.
> >
> > It would be okay to use AI to research APIs, algorithms, brainstorm
> > ideas, debug the code, analyze the code, etc but the actual code
> > changes must not be generated by AI.

The scope of the policy is around contributions we receive as
patches with SoB. Researching / brainstorming / analysis etc
are not contribution activities, so not covered by the policy
IMHO.

> 
> The existing text is about "AI code generators".  However, the "most
> notably LLMs" that follows it could lead readers to believe it's about
> more than just code generation, because LLMs are in fact used for more.
> I figure this is your concern.
> 
> We could instead start wide, then narrow the focus to code generation.
> Here's my try:
> 
>   The increasing prevalence of AI-assisted software development results
>   in a number of difficult legal questions and risks for software
>   projects, including QEMU.  Of particular concern is code generated by
>   `Large Language Models
>   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model>`__ (LLMs).

Documentation we maintain has the same concerns as code.
So I'd suggest to substitute 'code' with 'code / content'.

> If we want to mention uses of AI we consider okay, I'd do so further
> down, to not distract from the main point here.  Perhaps:
> 
>   The QEMU project thus requires 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 either known or suspected.
> 
>   This policy does not apply to other uses of AI, such as researching APIs or
>   algorithms, static analysis, or debugging.
> 
>   Examples of tools impacted by this policy includes both GitHub's CoPilot,
>   OpenAI's ChatGPT, and Meta's Code Llama, amongst many others which are less
>   well known.
> 
> The paragraph in the middle is new, the other two are unchanged.
> 
> Thoughts?

IMHO its redundant, as the policy is expressly around contribution of
code/content, and those activities as not contribution related, so
outside the scope already.

> 
> >> +to, `Large Language Models 
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model>`__
> >> +(LLMs) results in a number of difficult legal questions and risks for 
> >> software
> >> +projects, including QEMU.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> [...]
> 

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 :|