--
Gesendet mit der GMX Mail App
Am 01.06.26, 19:42 schrieb Dan Eble <[email protected]>:
On 2026-06-01 03:49, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
>>
>> What percentage of this work is AI-generated? <!-- 0-100 -->
>>
>> Do you think that would effectively address that specific
concern?
>
> Of course, since the number given will (according to your
proposal)
> influence how the MR is dealt with, we depend on getting an honest
> answer to that question. I don't want to seem paranoid, but maybe
it
> would be wise to add - somewhere in the CG - a statement along the
lines
> of: Commits with non-disclosed AI-generated code get refused (or
may get
> reverted later).
I'd perceive that notice as unwelcoming. If the answer is missing we
could just draw attention to it gently. I'm sure someone will
eventually accidentally delete the question while editing their
summary
and need just a nudge about it.
If we ever find something that shouldn't have been merged, we should
just revert it. We don't need to give notice.
> In the discussions of the current MR I noticed the term
"AI-assisted".
> Maybe it would we a good idea to distinguish various kinds and
degrees
> of AI assistance: IIUC, not every way of using an LLM during
development
> leads to longer, coherent blocks of AI generated code.
Good point. I think it would be best if the question in the MR
template
didn't demand a lot of thought to answer or interpret. I wouldn't
want
people splitting hairs or making accusations like, "but you said
50%,
this is closer to 75%."
I suggested "AI-generated" because "AI-assisted" sounds broader than
I
care about. I don't care if someone has used AI to analyze code and
explore solutions. I care about what I am reviewing. If it's
generated
content that hasn't been under a critical eye yet, that's important.
Then you should Care about being read, not about génération. I do
not press the commit button without reading things, though most is
redacted by me anyway.
Arno
--
Dan
