On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:45 AM Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns.
> 1. Copyright concerns. I do think it makes sense to consider some of this. However, I feel like the proposal is redundant with the existing requirement to signoff on the DCO, which says: >>> By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: >>> 1. The contribution was created in whole or in part by me, and >>> I have the right to submit it under the free software license >>> indicated in the file; or >>> 2. The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of >>> my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate free software license, >>> and I have the right under that license to submit that work with >>> modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under the >>> same free software license (unless I am permitted to submit under a >>> different license), as indicated in the file; or >>> 3. The contribution is a license text (or a file of similar nature), >>> and verbatim distribution is allowed; or >>> 4. The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person >>> who certified 1., 2., 3., or 4., and I have not modified it. Perhaps we ought to just re-advertise the policy that already exists? > 2. Quality concerns. As far as quality is concerned, I again share the concerns you raise, and I think we should just re-emphasize what many other industries are already making clear - that individuals are responsible for the quality of their contributions. Copy/pasting it blindly from an AI is no different from copy/pasting it from some other random website, even if it is otherwise legal. > 3. Ethical concerns. I think it is best to just avoid taking a stand on this. Our ethics are already documented in the Social Contract. I think everybody agrees that what is right and wrong is obvious and clear and universal. Then we're all shocked to find that large numbers of people have a universal perspective different from our own. Even if 90% of contributors agree with a particular position, if we start lopping off parts of our community 10% at a time we'll probably find ourselves alone in a room sooner or later. We can't make every hill the one to die on. > I think adding "made by real people" to the list of our advantages > would be a good thing Somehow I doubt this is going to help us steal market share from the numerous other popular source-based Linux distros. :) To be clear, I don't think it is a bad idea to just reiterate that we aren't looking for help from people who want to create scripts that pipe things into some GPT API and pipe the output into a forum, bug, issue, PR, or commit. I've seen other FOSS projects struggling with people trying to be "helpful" in this way. I just don't think any of this actually requires new policy. If we find our policy to be inadequate I think it is better to go back to the core principles and better articulate what we're trying to achieve, rather than adjust it to fit the latest fashions. -- Rich
