Re: Ballot Option: Allow public AI for translations

On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 05:35:33AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>---updated proposal---
>
>Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues 
>the following statement describing its current position on AI-assisted 
>contributions. This statement describes the position of the project at 
>the time it is adopted. That position may evolve as time passes 
>without the need to resort to future general resolutions. The GR 
>process remains available if the project needs a decision and cannot 
>come to a consensus.
>
>LLMs have made a huge leap in language translations, but at the same 
>time depending on big tech companies to provide this service is not a 
>good idea. When it comes to generating code, we also need to consider 
>how it weakens the idea of copyleft.
>
>1. Public AI is AI as public infrastructure like highways, water, or 
>electricity. An example of Public AI is https://publicai.co, which is 
>funded by Mozilla, the Future of Life Institute, and the Center for 
>Cultural Innovation. It also complies with Open Source AI definition 
>by OSI (https://opensource.org/ai). For AI to be accessible to people, 
>it has to be available easily to people and not for profit 
>collaborations between multiple organizations and public funding is 
>essential to keep it sustainable.
>
>2. Public AI must use Free Software models.
>
>3. At this point, we don't want to insist on training data being 
>freely available, similar to how we don't insist on Free Hardware 
>Designs. The challenges to practically being able to use the available 
>data should be factored in. Similar to how costly it would be to 
>produce hardware from Free Hardware Designs, even when training data 
>is available, huge computing power is required to use it practically.
>
>4. Translations generated by Public AI can be accepted.
>
>5. Code / documentation generated by Public AI can also be accepted if 
>it preserves share alike / copyleft conditions of original code used 
>in training.
>
>---updated proposal---
>
>I'd need seconds if people feel we need an option for allowing Public 
>AI/Open Source AI. This would be closer to proposal A in practice, but 
>could become more useful when the Free Software models mature and 
>produce better results than currently.
>
>I could also get some help in making the draft better.

I have been away from the discussion for a few days, but is it on 
purpose that this proposal does not shed a single word on AI assisted 
coding or bugfinding/fixing?

Will that mean that AI assisted work on the actual code is freely 
allowed or fully forbidden?

Greetings
Marc