Re: [PATCH] index-pack: speed up promisor link recording

"brian m. carlson" <[email protected]> writes:

>>     index-pack: speed up promisor link recording
>> 
>>     AI assistance: OpenAI Codex was used to identify the bottleneck and
>>     assist with the implementation, testing, and benchmark analysis. I
>>     reviewed the resulting change and take responsibility for this
>>     submission.
>
> I don't think SubmittingPatches really allows more than trivial changes
> written by AI:
>
>     The Developer's Certificate of Origin requires contributors to certify
>     that they know the origin of their contributions to the project and
>     that they have the right to submit it under the project's license.
>     It's not yet clear that this can be legally satisfied when submitting
>     significant amount of content that has been generated by AI tools.
>
>     [...]
>
>     To avoid these issues, we will reject anything that looks AI
>     generated, that sounds overly formal or bloated, that looks like AI
>     slop, that looks good on the surface but makes no sense, or that
>     senders don’t understand or cannot explain.
>
> This doesn't look like it's a trivial change, so I don't believe this
> patch can be accepted.

The project we borrowed DCO from has this to say on this topic:

 https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-assistants.html

 * All contributions must comply with licensing reuqirements.
 * Only humans can attest DCO by Siging off their patches.

   The human submitter is responsible for reviewing all AI generated
   code, ensuring compliance with licensing requirements, certify
   DCO with their sign-off, and taking full responsibility for the
   contribution.

Now we are *not* kernel, but I think there is a general concensus in
the community that, while we do not want to outright ban machine
assisted contributions, we generally want to tread very carefully,
especially in the DCO area.

It is very easy for anybody and their dog to say "I reviewed X" and
it is very hard for others to assess how trustworthy such a
statement is, so I am unsure how the kernel project is enforcing the
"human submitter is responsible for these", and more importantly,
even assuming that we would take a similar policy for ourselves, I
am not sure what mechanism we can put in place to detect cases where
these expectations are violated.

So...