On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 08:06:05PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 24.09.2026 um 18:06 hat Michael S. Tsirkin geschrieben: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 12:46:41PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > Am 24.09.2026 um 11:29 hat Alex Bennée geschrieben: > > > > Kevin Wolf <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > > > > > Am 21.09.2026 um 15:20 hat Daniel P. Berrangé geschrieben: > > > > >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 09:52:48AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > >> > +.. note:: **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 :ref:`Developer's > > > > >> > Certificate of > > > > >> > + Origin (DCO) <dco>`. > > > > >> > + > > > > >> > + Since a submitter cannot audit LLM output against its > > > > >> > training > > > > >> > + data, the DCO is paired with :ref:`metadata in the > > > > >> > commit message > > > > >> > + <ai-used-for>` about AI-generated parts. The DCO still > > > > >> > certifies > > > > >> > + that the contributor has the legal right to submit code > > > > >> > in general. > > > > >> > > > > >> I'm not a fan of this second paragraph, as that feels like it is > > > > >> undermining > > > > >> the DCO. That first sentence in particular is somewhat saying that > > > > >> the > > > > >> contributor does not have to think about plagarism and thed project > > > > >> is ok > > > > >> with that, and also implying that the DCO doesn't apply to the LLM > > > > >> output. > > > > >> This is both not OK in its implication of the project accepting some > > > > >> liability, and then also contradicted by the next sentence. > > > > >> > > > > >> IMHO this paragraph should just be removed. The first paragraph > > > > >> clearly > > > > >> states the DCO applies to the submission as a whole, and leaves all > > > > >> liability > > > > >> for infringement on the contributor. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think making this the individual contributor's problem is > > > > > great. > > > > > It's rather unfriendly towards contributors to expect them to certify > > > > > something that we all know they can't honestly certify. > > > > > > > > This is the current position with the DCO anyway. If the contributor has > > > > copy and pasted (and maybe adapted) from Stack Overflow they are still > > > > realistically the only person that can make that judgement. > > > > > > Yes, that's the current position with the DCO and the reasoning why we > > > said LLM output is unacceptable in submissions. > > > > > > The big difference is if I copy and pasted from Stack Overflow, I _know_ > > > that I did that. If the LLM effectively does it for me, I don't know > > > that. The best I can do is check if I can find similar code elsewhere. > > > > You can block your LLM from accessing stack overflow. > > Given that training my own model from scratch isn't a realistic option, > I can't block the LLM from being trained on data from Stack Overflow. > > Kevin
But again, that is beside the point, unless you believe that a judge will (or should?) close all LLMs overnight declaring their output a derivative of the internet and so illegal to use. If not, training is transformative, and LLM output is not a derivative of the internet *unless it is input with Stack Overflow*. -- MST
