Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> writes: > Until now QEMU's code provenance policy declined any contribution > believed to include or derive from AI-generated content. A blanket ban > was easy to maintain while LLM output was rarely usable on its own, but > as the tools improved an absolute prohibition has become harder to > justify. > <snip> > > -TL;DR: > +.. warning:: > > - **Current QEMU project policy is to DECLINE any contributions which are > - believed to include or derive from AI generated content. This includes > - ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Llama and similar tools.** > + Please read the below policy before using AI to contribute code or > + documentation to QEMU. This applies to ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, > + Llama, and similar tools.** >
Stray **, also extra space after QEMU. > - **This policy does not apply to other uses of AI, such as researching APIs > - or algorithms, static analysis, or debugging, provided their output is not > - included in contributions.** > +The increasing prevalence of AI-assisted software development, > +and especially the use of content generated by `Large Language Models > +<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model>`__ (LLMs), > +poses a number of difficult questions. > > -The increasing prevalence of AI-assisted software development results in a > -number of difficult legal questions and risks for software projects, > including > -QEMU. Of particular concern is content generated by `Large Language Models > -<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model>`__ (LLMs). > +Risks to open source projects include maintainer burnout from an > +increased number of contributions, as well as the risk to the project > +from unintentional inclusion of copyrighted material in the LLM's output. > +In order to mitigate these risks, the QEMU project currently allows > +using AI/LLM tools to produce patches in a limited set of scenarios: > > -The QEMU community requires that contributors certify their patch submissions > -are made in accordance with the rules of the `Developer's Certificate of > -Origin (DCO) <dco>`. > +**Mechanical changes** > + If you can use a deterministic tool, it is preferred that you use > it deterministic tool or script,? > + and not replace it with AI. If you don't know how to do the change > + deterministically, you can ask the AI for help. > > -To satisfy the DCO, the patch contributor has to fully understand the > -copyright and license status of content they are contributing to QEMU. With > AI > -content generators, the copyright and license status of the output is > -ill-defined with no generally accepted, settled legal foundation. > +**Small bug fixes** > + These should be limited to 20 lines of code or less, not including > + tests. You are still expected to :ref:`understand and explain your changes > + <write_a_meaningful_commit_message>` and the rationale behind them. > > -Where the training material is known, it is common for it to include large > -volumes of material under restrictive licensing/copyright terms. Even where > -the training material is all known to be under open source licenses, it is > -likely to be under a variety of terms, not all of which will be compatible > -with QEMU's licensing requirements. > +**Documentation and code comments** > + While AI can help draft text, it still requires significant human > + oversight. Pay attention to the organization and flow of the generated > + text, and strictly fact-check all technical details as LLMs are prone > + to being confidently wrong. > > -How contributors could comply with DCO terms (b) or (c) for the output of AI > -content generators commonly available today is unclear. The QEMU project is > -not willing or able to accept the legal risks of non-compliance. > +**Tests** > + Note that you must still confirm that each test actually exercises > + the intended behavior including, for regression tests, that it > + fails without the code under test and passes for the right reason. > > -The QEMU project thus requires that contributors refrain from using AI > content > -generators on patches intended to be submitted to the project, and will > -decline any contribution if use of AI is either known or suspected. > +These boundaries do not apply to other uses of AI, such as researching > +APIs or algorithms, static analysis, or debugging, provided the model's > +output is not included in contributions. > > -Examples of tools impacted by this policy includes GitHub's CoPilot, OpenAI's > -ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude, and Meta's Code Llama, and code/content > -generation agents which are built on top of such tools. > +If you wish to send large amounts of AI-generated changes, or any other > +contribution not in the above categories, please get in touch with the > +maintainer beforehand. These can be treated as experiments, at the > +discretion of the maintainer and the community, with no obligation > +to accept them. > > -This policy may evolve as AI tools mature and the legal situation is > -clarified. > +**Use of AI does not remove the need for authors to comply with all > +other requirements for contribution.** In particular, the > +``Signed-off-by`` label in a patch submission is a statement that > +the author takes responsibility for the entire contents of the patch, > +certifying that their patch submission is made in accordance with the > +rules of the `Developer's Certificate of Origin (DCO) <dco>`. > > -Exceptions > -^^^^^^^^^^ > +Commit messages for AI-assisted changes > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > In my v2 I added: AI tools **should not be used to write commit messages**. The act of summarising and explaining the reasoning for the changes is an important demonstration of the human authors understanding of the commit. > -The QEMU project welcomes discussion on any exceptions to this policy, > -or more general revisions. This can be done by contacting the qemu-devel > -mailing list with details of a proposed tool, model, usage scenario, etc. > -that is beneficial to QEMU, while still mitigating issues around compliance > -with the DCO. After discussion, any exception will be listed below. > +When AI/LLM tools produce or substantively shape your patch, add an > +``AI-used-for:`` line before ``Signed-off-by``, as a reminder of your > +DCO obligations and a guide to reviewers. The text is one or more of > +``code``, ``tests``, ``docs``, ``research``, possibly followed by an > +explanation in parentheses: > > -Exceptions do not remove the need for authors to comply with all other > -requirements for contribution. In particular, the "Signed-off-by" > -label in a patch submission is a statement that the author takes > -responsibility for the entire contents of the patch, including any parts > -that were generated or assisted by AI tools or other tools. > +.. code-block:: none > + > + AI-used-for: tests, docs > + AI-used-for: code > + AI-used-for: code (refactoring) > + AI-used-for: code (prototype) > + AI-used-for: research > + > +``AI-used-for`` should not be included for "background" usage such as > +autocomplete or obtaining a pre-review of the patch. > + > +There is no requirement to include your prompts or summarize the > +conversation in the commit message or cover letter, but you may do so > +if you think it helps a reviewer judge the result. For example: > + > +**Helpful prompts** > + These describe concrete constraints or instructions, making it easy for a > + reviewer to see how the tool's output was guided: > + > + * "move field ``foo`` from ``struct aa`` to ``struct bb``. If a > + function already has a local variable or parameter of type ``struct > + bb``, use it instead of accessing ``aa.bb``" > + > + * "add an implementation of the trait for ``Mutex<T: MyTrait>``; it > + takes the lock around the calls and forwards to ``T``" > + > +**Unhelpful prompts** > + These are too generic to provide meaningful context. You can of course > + use them in the context of a complex interaction with the LLM, but they > + should not be included in the commit message: > + > + * "write user-facing documentation for the new tool" > + > + * "write testcases for the new functions" > + > +QEMU does *not* use ``Assisted-by``, ``Co-authored-by`` or ``Generated-by`` > +trailers to indicate AI usage. In particular, it is not necessary to > +specify the exact AI model or tool used to create the commit. > + > +Deterministic tooling (sed, coccinelle, formatters) is out of scope for > +the trailer, but should be mentioned in the commit message. The other changes in my v2 where just different wordings for the same concept. With those have a: Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <[email protected]> -- Alex Bennée Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
