Re: Policy on use of LLM tools and bug fixes

On 4/17/2026 10:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 at 16:54, Andrew Pinski via Gcc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 5:22 AM Christopher Albert via Gcc
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I fully agree with you, Richard! Making AI assistance transparent and
>>> have clear rules about it is key. I didn't publicly flag my use of AI
>>> tools up to now because I was afraid that the contributions would get
>>> rejected upfront due to unclear policy or strong opinions. Internally, I
>>> was more open about it out of respect for the reviewers who invested a
>>> lot of time and effort. From now on, I will add Assisted-by: to the patches.
>> They absolutely should have been rejected and now they should be
>> rejected for not disclosing in the past usage of LLMs.
> Unfortunately, we've probably got other examples where the origin of
> the code was not disclosed. It's why we need to have a clear policy
> about it. It's hard to tell people they shouldn't have done something
> when we never defined that as a rule.
>
>> See what OpenJDK does about this; https://openjdk.org/legal/ai.
> I think this is a good policy. It's very clear, and doesn't try to
> restrict contributors from using AI (or any other tools) for their own
> offline purposes. It only restricts the content which is committed to
> the project, which is (IMHO) as it should be.
At its core it appears sensible.  I'm particularly happy to see that 
it's noted as an interm policy and tries to be reasonably safe while 
still acknowledging that the LLM tools have value.  As the legal 
landscape, LLM tools improve, etc these policies will need to be revisited.

Personally I use LLMs to augment the review process.  I tend focus more 
on the "is this patch sensible" and miss details.  I'm having reasonable 
success with having the LLM potentially identify the corner cases and 
smaller stuff.
jeff