FWIW, as Loïc already mentioned, we had the same discussions on the
scikit-learn side.
We noticed every now and then a few issues / PRs would come which were
clearly AI generated, and in almost all those cases, the account posting
them didn't look like a human / didn't have a history on GH.
At th
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 3:17 PM Adrin wrote:
>
> FWIW, as Loïc already mentioned, we had the same discussions on the
> scikit-learn side.
>
> We noticed every now and then a few issues / PRs would come which were
> clearly AI generated, and in almost all those cases, the account posting them
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 8:42 PM Matthew Brett
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 6:44 PM Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 5:08 PM Matthew Brett
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 3:41 PM Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On T
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 6:44 PM Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 5:08 PM Matthew Brett wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 3:41 PM Ralf Gommers wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 1:34 PM Matthew Brett
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Thu
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 7:09 PM Stefan Krah wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 04:18:03PM +0100, Matthew Brett wrote:
> > I feel sure we would want to avoid GPL code if the copyright holders
> > felt that we were abusing their license - regardless of whether the
> > court felt the copyright wa
On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 03:46:02PM +, Rohit Goswami wrote:
> Doesn't the project adopting wording of this kind "pass the buck" onto the
> maintainers?
I think it depends. NetBSD's AI policy mentions the responsibility of the
committers:
https://www.netbsd.org/developers/commit-guidelines.h
On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 04:18:03PM +0100, Matthew Brett wrote:
> I feel sure we would want to avoid GPL code if the copyright holders
> felt that we were abusing their license - regardless of whether the
> court felt the copyright was realistically enforceable.
Apologies for probably stating the o
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 5:08 PM Matthew Brett
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 3:41 PM Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 1:34 PM Matthew Brett
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 12:20 PM Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 4:46 PM Rohit Goswami wrote:
>
> Doesn't the project adopting wording of this kind "pass the buck" onto the
> maintainers? At the end of the day, failure to enforce our stated policy will
> be not only the responsibility of the authors but also the reviewers /
> main
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024, at 08:18, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
> I wish it for be common sense for contributors to an open source
> codebase that they need to own the copyright on their contributions, but
> I don't think it can be assumed. Adding something to these lines to the
> project policy has also
Doesn't the project adopting wording of this kind "pass the buck" onto
the maintainers? At the end of the day, failure to enforce our stated
policy will be not only the responsibility of the authors but also the
reviewers / maintainers on whole. In effect (and just speaking
personally) wording
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 4:04 PM Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
>
> On 04/07/24 12:49, Matthew Brett wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry to top-post! But - I wanted to bring the discussion back to
> > licensing. I have great sympathy for the ecological and code-quality
> > concerns, but licensing is a sepa
On 04/07/24 13:29, Matthew Brett wrote:
I agree it is hard to enforce, but it seems to me it would be a
reasonable defensive move to say - for now - that authors will need to
take full responsibility for copyright, and that, as of now,
AI-generated code cannot meet that standard, so we require au
> Personally, I wouldn't (as a maintainer)...
Especially since I know that many potential contributors may not have
English as their first language so stunted language / odd patterns are
not **always** an AI indicator, sometimes its just inexperience.
-- Rohit
On 7/4/24 3:03 PM, Daniele Nico
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 4:11 PM wrote:
>
> Personally, I wouldn't (as a maintainer) take a decision to reject code based
> on if I feel it is generated by AI. It is much easier to rule on the quality
> of the contribution itself, and as noted, at least so far the AI only
> contributions are
Personally, I wouldn't (as a maintainer) take a decision to reject code based
on if I feel it is generated by AI. It is much easier to rule on the quality of
the contribution itself, and as noted, at least so far the AI only
contributions are very probably not going to clear the barrier of bein
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 3:41 PM Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 1:34 PM Matthew Brett wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 12:20 PM Ralf Gommers wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 12:55 PM Matthew Brett
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sorry - reposting fr
On 04/07/24 12:49, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
Sorry to top-post! But - I wanted to bring the discussion back to
licensing. I have great sympathy for the ecological and code-quality
concerns, but licensing is a separate question, and, it seems to me,
an urgent question.
The licensing issue is c
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 1:34 PM Matthew Brett
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 12:20 PM Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 12:55 PM Matthew Brett
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry - reposting from my subscribed address:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Sorry to top-post! But - I
> It is perfectly possible that the AI will largely or completely reproduce
> some existing GPL code for A, from its training data. There is no way that I
> could know that the AI has done that without some substantial research.
Even if it did, what if the common code were arrived at independe
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 12:20 PM Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 12:55 PM Matthew Brett wrote:
>>
>> Sorry - reposting from my subscribed address:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sorry to top-post! But - I wanted to bring the discussion back to
>> licensing. I have great sympathy for the
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 12:55 PM Matthew Brett
wrote:
> Sorry - reposting from my subscribed address:
>
> Hi,
>
> Sorry to top-post! But - I wanted to bring the discussion back to
> licensing. I have great sympathy for the ecological and code-quality
> concerns, but licensing is a separate quest
Sorry - reposting from my subscribed address:
Hi,
Sorry to top-post! But - I wanted to bring the discussion back to
licensing. I have great sympathy for the ecological and code-quality
concerns, but licensing is a separate question, and, it seems to me,
an urgent question.
Imagine I asked some
Hi,
Sorry to top-post! But - I wanted to bring the discussion back to
licensing. I have great sympathy for the ecological and code-quality
concerns, but licensing is a separate question, and, it seems to me,
an urgent question.
Imagine I asked some AI to give me code to replicate a particular a
Hi All,
I agree with Dan that the actual contributions to the documentation are
of little value: it is not easy to write good documentation, with
examples that show not just the mechnanics but the purpose of the
function, i.e., go well beyond just showing some random inputs and
outputs. And poorl
On 03/07/24 23:40, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
We recently got a set of well-labeled PRs containing (reviewed)
AI-generated code:
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/26827
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/26828
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/26829
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/26830
From a quick look, it seems like some of these (the masked array ones) are
trivial enough to not warrant inclusion and the ctypes snippet is obvious
enough that copyright claims won't be an issue. In terms of broader policy I
don't really have much to say, except that in general it is probably
Hi,
in scikit-learn, more of a FYI than some kind of policy (amongst other
things it does not even mention explicitly "AI" and avoids the licence
discussion), we recently added a note in our FAQ about "fully automated
tools":
https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/29287
From my persona
28 matches
Mail list logo
