[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250821153608.GF1827@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 11:36:08 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Proposed "AI" policies
On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 07:40:45PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> Some mentions here and there of ChatGPT/"AI" in musl- and
> musl-adjacent contexts has had me thinking we really should have some
> explicit policy on this stuff, which could be posted on the wiki as
> well as in final form here, and wherever else it may be appropriate,
> before it becomes an issue.
>
> In a sense I don't even see these as "AI policies", just provenance,
> authorship-credit, honesty, license-honoring, etc. policies, but
> unfortunately it's "AI" that's made it necessary to spell them out
> explicitly. So, here's roughly what I have in mind:
>
> 1. Please DO NOT submit "AI generated" code/patches for inclusion in
> musl. These do not have clear authorship, are derived from models
> that are clearly derived from a plethora of copyrighted works
> without license or attribution, and thereby cannot be licensed by
> the submitter. Being that most patch contributions to musl are
> small and simple enough that it's dubious whether copyright applies
> at all, this may not be an issue in all cases, but it's still
> dishonest and wastes our time reviewing code that the submitter did
> not write and does not have any reasonable basis to assume is
> correct. Often the changes proposed by these models are blatently
> incorrect and introduce bugs/vulns into previously-correct code.
>
> 2. Please DO NOT submit "AI generated" or otherwise automated bug
> reports without disclosing the provenance (or lack thereof). This
> wastes everybody's time. If you are using tooling to identify
> potential bugs, please either confirm before reporting that you
> have actually found a bug (not just that the tool said it's a bug),
> or clearly state in the report that it's unconfirmed, which tools
> you used, and why you think the alleged bug may be legitimate -- or
> if you don't know you're just asking whether it might be.
>
> 3. Even being a permissive license, the MIT license requires
> attribution and preservation of copyright notice. It thereby does
> not permit incorporation of musl sources (or other MIT licensed
> code) into models or derived outputs of models where the necessary
> attribution and preservation of copyright notice are not possible.
>
> Anything I'm missing or that seems like it should be changed?
One thing I'd like to add based on having heard reports that "AI" is
deemed important for non-native English speakers to make reports:
4. If you are considering use of "AI" tools to generate, proofread, or
translate something you are trying to report because you don't
consider yourself sufficiently proficient in English, instead
please just submit it in a language you are comfortable writing
with a brief English note at the beginning to that effect. This
allows those of us reading the report to use tools (or the advice
of actual people) we trust to accurately translate the meaning
instead of having to trust that the "AI" tool you were going to use
emitted text that matches what you wanted to say. Debugging
confabulations generated by your tooling is a much worse (and
unacceptable) burden on us than making sense of a foreign language
would be.
Exact wording could be adjusted (perhaps to be more accessible
English) as needed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
