There was recently a thread on AI-generated documentation:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2026-05/msg00025.html
---
Now, I want to ask whether anyone sees any issue with merging
AI-generated program code. This is somewhat urgent in the sense that we
have such an MR in draft, though of course we could delay it until there
is certainty. I just wouldn't want the uncertainty to last so long that
a capable contributor gets frustrated and leaves.
To my knowledge (and I have been paying only minimal attention), the FSF
views AI-assisted contributions to GNU projects as potentially
problematic but has not established a policy.
As a reviewer, I strongly desire two things:
1. openness about the origin of the code I'm reviewing
2. accountability of the human submitter (not reviewers)
for the code that is merged
For the MR that is in draft now, there were tells in the patch, but I
had to ask the submitter twice before he confirmed that it was
"AI-assisted." To streamline this in the future, I propose configuring
a template for default MR descriptions something like this:
##### Description
<!-- Describe your motivation and your work briefly
to orient reviewers. If you have not described
your commits well, go back and do that first. -->
##### Question
What percentage of this work is AI-generated? <!-- 0-100 -->
Do you think that would effectively address that specific concern?
---
Another situation arises at the confluence of these things:
* Anyone with middle-class money and some patience can
rather easily submit a high-line-count patch that solves
a narrowly defined problem and passes regression tests.
* Unless the submitter first examines the generated code
carefully to confirm that it aligns with his intent more
broadly, that kind of generated code demands even more
of reviewers' time and attention than before.
* The number of active reviewers (those who have been
leaving comments) is currently small.
* Our current "countdown" policy effectively treats
silence as approval, and moves changes forward as long
as there are no objections within a certain time.
Therefore, I suggest adopting a new policy: AI-generated program code
does not automatically move forward without a human reviewer's
acknowledgment. It should be full acknowledgment, not, for example,
"C++ LGTM; don't know about Scheme."
It would fall to the "patch meister" to help people follow this policy
and to allow sensible exceptions, such as if a contributor with a good
record vouches for the quality of his own AI-generated submission in an
area where he has developed expertise.
---
Is there any other guidance that we active contributors should follow
when dealing with AI-generated submissions? The floor is open.
Thanks,
--
Dan
