Hi Jan, I appreciate this initiative. And I have been thinking about this lately as well in the context of open source contributions. Irrespective of the number of lines of code written by AI in a PR, whether 10% or 80%, the ownership lies with the project, and a reviewer *would* be expected to review 100% of the code anyway. So it's only fair there is atleast a heads up in the PR mentioning the same.
I'll also leave comments, if any, on the PR. Thanks, Rahul On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 4:23 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > In many PRs it is clear that AI has been a major contributor, maybe even > written the entire code and description. > Sometimes it is obvious, other times you get an AI "vibe" due to e.g. > overly detailed documentation or hallucination. > I'm not against AI assistance in code or docs, neither is the ASF. But > there are certain things we must ensure gets right. > ASF has a GenAI page at > https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html focusing on > Copyright and licensing which is a good starting point. > But I think it is also time to more actively take a stance as a project > and set expectations. > > Discussion points: > > 1. Should users be encouraged to self-declare use of AI tools for > transparency? Even minor use? > 2. If yes to #1, where should they declare such use - in PR description, > or also in commit-message, e.g. "Generated-By: Foo" or "AI-Assisted: yes" > 3. We should update contributor docs, I propose a responsibility and > transparency focus, see https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/3946 > > Jan > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
