Re: Current policy on AI-generated code in NumPy

On Thu, 19 Feb 2026, at 1:45 PM, Charles R Harris via NumPy-Discussion wrote:
> +1. The interaction on that PR as a whole struck me as harsh, verging on rude.

It certainly shows the need for developing a unified policy sooner rather than later! *sigh*

I did want to push back on this statement from the PR:

>> Therefore, if any of the code included in the PR was generated by AI,
> That is an extreme position, if we do that we will end up with no maintainers because everyone coming up will be using AI. 

I want to push back specifically on this point because it is not a good basis from which to determine policy. We can, and I would argue we *must*, play a part in whether "everyone" will be using AI. I'll lift this quote (via Juan Luis Cano Rodriguez[1]) from "Resisting Enchantment and Determinism: How to critically engage with AI university guidelines" [2]:

> Enchanted by determinism, some see the adoption and use of generative AI in education as inexorable as the effects of the laws of physics. This perspective nudges us towards helplessness and acceptance: no one can change gravity. Besides, it would be absurd to ask whether gravity is good or if we want it.
> [...]
> *We must not be persuaded by the false premise of a human-made artefact being inevitable.*

Juan.

[1]: https://astrojuanlu.leaflet.pub/3meyu6zht2c2q
[2]: https://zenodo.org/records/18282338

_______________________________________________
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]