[musl] Proposed "AI" policies

[musl] Proposed "AI" policies

[Rich Felker]

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?

Rich

Re: [musl] Proposed "AI" policies

[Quentin Rameau]

Hi,

> Anything I'm missing or that seems like it should be changed?

>    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

Maybe that part above could be reworded a bit, although I believe what
you say is true, the problem is just that those are completely opaque
regarding training sources, and so cannot be proven of good faith
at all, enven if in practice it was actually trained
from truly righteous material.

> 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.

Maybe the bug reporting part should be emphasized on its own,
disregarding the source of it, I think that's valable for computers
and humans altogether.
Then the AI part could be an addition to it, instead of the inverse.