Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> writes: > On 10/10/25 14:38, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> The boundary between legal and illegal is a superposition of fuzzy, >> squiggly lines, one per jurisdiction. >> >> We can only try to approximate it from the legal side. >> The tighter we try to approximate, the more risk we take on. >> >> In addition, tighter approximations can be difficult to understand and >> apply. > > I agree. > >> [Strong argument why type annotations are low risk snipped...] > > Note that type annotations are pretty much the upper bound of what I > would consider a mechanical change. I would expect, for most cases, > that "include the prompt in the commit message" and the boringness of > the change are together already a satisfactory explanation. > > At the same time, I decided to try with a more complex change to 1) > avoid a slippery slope; it's easier to do so if you look at the hard > cases from the beginning, and Daniel did that very, very well; 2) probe > the limitations of the tool and ascertain if it's even worthwhile having > an exception.
It was a useful experiment. >>> There's a definite "slippery slope" situation. The incentive for >>> contributors will be to search out reasons to justify why a work >>> matches the AI exception, >> >> „Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.“ > > Yes, and that's why we should strive for simplicity if we are to have > exceptions. If you cannot convince me with the prompt that your change > is mechanical/non-creative, don't even bother making complicated and > probably wrong legal arguments. > > Paying a certain price upfront (i.e., now) is fine, but in the long term > the maintainer's job wrt AI should be and remain easy. There has to be > a cost, but then the same would be true with any policy other than > "don't ask, don't tell"---including zero tolerance. Yes. Cost is fine when the benefits are worth it. Maintainer bandwidth is precious. But it's not infiniyely precious :)
