Merging AI-generated program code

There was recently a thread on AI-generated documentation:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2026-05/msg00025.html

---

Now, I want to ask whether anyone sees any issue with merging 
AI-generated program code.  This is somewhat urgent in the sense that we 
have such an MR in draft, though of course we could delay it until there 
is certainty.  I just wouldn't want the uncertainty to last so long that 
a capable contributor gets frustrated and leaves.

To my knowledge (and I have been paying only minimal attention), the FSF 
views AI-assisted contributions to GNU projects as potentially 
problematic but has not established a policy.

As a reviewer, I strongly desire two things:

1. openness about the origin of the code I'm reviewing
2. accountability of the human submitter (not reviewers)
    for the code that is merged

For the MR that is in draft now, there were tells in the patch, but I 
had to ask the submitter twice before he confirmed that it was 
"AI-assisted."  To streamline this in the future, I propose configuring 
a template for default MR descriptions something like this:

     ##### Description

     <!-- Describe your motivation and your work briefly
     to orient reviewers.  If you have not described
     your commits well, go back and do that first. -->

     ##### Question

     What percentage of this work is AI-generated?  <!-- 0-100 -->

Do you think that would effectively address that specific concern?

---

Another situation arises at the confluence of these things:

* Anyone with middle-class money and some patience can
   rather easily submit a high-line-count patch that solves
   a narrowly defined problem and passes regression tests.

* Unless the submitter first examines the generated code
   carefully to confirm that it aligns with his intent more
   broadly, that kind of generated code demands even more
   of reviewers' time and attention than before.

* The number of active reviewers (those who have been
   leaving comments) is currently small.

* Our current "countdown" policy effectively treats
   silence as approval, and moves changes forward as long
   as there are no objections within a certain time.

Therefore, I suggest adopting a new policy: AI-generated program code 
does not automatically move forward without a human reviewer's 
acknowledgment.  It should be full acknowledgment, not, for example, 
"C++ LGTM; don't know about Scheme."

It would fall to the "patch meister" to help people follow this policy 
and to allow sensible exceptions, such as if a contributor with a good 
record vouches for the quality of his own AI-generated submission in an 
area where he has developed expertise.

---

Is there any other guidance that we active contributors should follow 
when dealing with AI-generated submissions?  The floor is open.

Thanks,
-- 
Dan