Re: Current policy on AI-generated code in NumPy

> I do think it's useful to know when tools were used in generating 
> significant portions of a PR, but it's not strictly necessary.

Is there already a 'methods' field? E.g. for prompts, "Solve this 
problem as if you were <different tool>."

Future bots may be able to debug better with the info.

Bill

--

Phobrain.com

On 2026-02-10 14:33, Stefan van der Walt via NumPy-Discussion wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026, at 12:35, Ralf Gommers via NumPy-Discussion 
> wrote:
> 
> The way I read Matthew's comment is not that we should prescribe how 
> people use their tools, but that we should be aware of the risks we are 
> facing,
> 
> This part is fine in the abstract - but that's also true for the 
> environmental and societal impacts.

Those things don't typically directly affect development, so I don't 
think they're comparable. But it may be that we just leave this entire 
category as "things you [as a contributor] need to worry about for your 
own sake".

>> and also communicate those risks to contributors who want to use AI 
>> tools to do NumPy development.
> 
> This doesn't necessarily make sense to me. If I try to figure out what 
> all the hand waving means concretely - i.e., "where would we want to 
> communicate such possible risks" - I think my answer is: probably 
> nowhere.
> [...]
> If there is a concrete idea/proposal for a docs section, policy 
> content, or anything like that, please clarify.

Here's the very general draft text we're currently proposing for 
skimage:

"""

  		1. indicate the tool used, as well as how, in the PR description;

  		2. make sure you *carefully review* and *fully understand* all

  		proposed changes so we may have a conversation about them; and

  		3. be careful not to breach any copyright or license terms (yes, we

  take those seriously!).

"""

Scikit-learn has something a bit more explicit:

https://scikit-learn.org/dev/developers/contributing.html#automated-contributions-policy

Before, it felt unnecessary to have such guidelines, because it would be 
silly to make a contribution without understanding it (how would you 
even come up with the patch). But, now it is entirely feasible to do so.

I'm also fine with not having any policy and just evaluating each 
contribution on its own merits. I do think it's useful to know when 
tools were used in generating significant portions of a PR, but it's not 
strictly necessary.

Stéfan

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3//lists/numpy-discussion.python.org
Member address: [email protected]

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3//lists/numpy-discussion.python.org
Member address: [email protected]