On Sun, Sep 27, 2026 at 12:03:39PM +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote: > On Sun, 27 Sep 2026, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 02:20:49PM +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote: > > > Not directly related to this patch but as an input to this discussion I'd > > > like to bring to your attention how some people use AI now. With LLMs > > > being > > > able to do more, some users who have no idea about coding or QEMU > > > internals > > > but want to use QEMU for things that we could not deliver, now just > > > maintain > > > a fork and let the AI add features and fix bugs they find without ever > > > contacting us or reporting these back. > > > > More power to them I say. There's no way to find gold in this sand. Let > > them be. > > Sure they are free to do whatever they want and I don't want to stop this > but I'd like to see that effort eventually improving QEMU and not lost for > us or need to be redone from scratch.
No one has the time and energy to wade through mountains of slop. > So some kind of AI policy is needed > and a strict no-AI policy does not help to get these efforts defragmented. There's no effort here. > While goal oriented use of AI tools without caring for code quality leads to > non-upstreamable patches maybe we could encourage these people to learn and > even use an AI to redo their patches in a way that can at some point be > upstreamed after some human review but since we don't have enough > maintainers who could do that for them this should be done by the > contributors. With the current no-AI policy they are locked out from > contributing so they won't even try. By now they have implemented features > we wanted for years but still could not get them due to not enough people > being able to write code and while the AI generated patches can be mostly > sand there are some gold in them that actually fixes issues or add features > that could be useful if there was a way to upstream them. With current > policy I can't even use the AI patches to look at them and clean them up for > upstreaming (not that I want to do that due to the lot of nonsense to sift > through but for some simpler patches this could be an option or if the > patches would be made higher quality by better guarding what the AI does). > Currently all I can say to these people is that QEMU does not accept AI > generated patches but maube it would be better to say that while they cannot > just submit their AI slop they should try to tell their AIs to do these > again cleaning up all the nonsense and distill the gold from it and then > there should be some way to let that improve QEMU without drowning the > maintainers and putting all this effort on them. > > Regards, > BALATON Zoltan AI's can not do this, at this juncture. -- MST
