Re: GCC AI Policy Announcement

On Wed, 29 Jul 2026, 19:03 Richard Biener, <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
> > Am 29.07.2026 um 17:30 schrieb Arthur Cohen <[email protected]>=
:
> >
> > =EF=BB=BFHi Richard,
> >
> > What are the important LLM issues that you think the policy fails to
> address? As the policy itself states, the it is expected to evolve and
> feedback is welcome. The goal is to continuously improve it.
>
> The policy grounds its rejection of legally significant LLM contributions
> on legal issues (by means of naming).  It does not cover the IMO much mor=
e
> severe issues of overwhelming reviewers and keeping GCC maintainable.


Such contributions are not allowed by the policy, so we don't need to burn
reviewer time on them, and we don't need to worry that those contributions
will make GCC unmaintainable.

If the legal situation changes and somebody wants to argue for relaxing the
policy, they'll need to make a convincing case that it won't overwhelm
reviewers or lead to code nobody understands. Until then, such discussions
don't seem productive too me (but that doesn't mean they can't happen
anyway).



  It also makes LLM assisted contributions by maintainers who might want to
> use LLMs to get to prototype stages fall into grey areas or even rejected=
.
> I realize the policy is not a discussion review document but what was the
> point of having the policy group when the outcome is just the obvious
> =E2=80=9Alegally unclear situation=E2=80=98 statement?
>

Now at least it's written down and we can point to it as the policy.
Previously it was unclear whether this project cared about the legal issues=
.

As Arthur said, this isn't expected to be the final policy that lasts
forever.