Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] SubmittingPatches: add section about AI

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 12:45:43 -0400

On October 3, 2025 12:21 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>Christian Couder <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>>> A milder way to phrase this would be to jump directly to "we reject
>>> what the sender cannot explain when asked about it".  "How does this
>>> work?"  "Why is this a good thing to do?"  "Where did it come from?"
>>> instead of saying "looks AI generated".
>>>
>>> It would sidestep the "who decides if it looks AI generated?" question.
>>
>> I don't think the "who decides if it looks AI generated?" question is
>> very relevant. If someone says that a patch looks mostly AI generated
>> and gives a good argument supporting this claim, it's the same as if
>> someone gives any other good argument against the patch. In the end,
>> the community and you decide if the argument is good enough and if the
>> patch should be rejected based on that (and other arguments for and
>> against the patch of course).
>
>And then who plays the final arbiter?  One can keep insisting on a patch
that looks
>to me an apparent AI slop that it was what one wrote oneself, but you may
find it a
>plausible that it was a human creation.  Then what?
>
>It is very much relevant to avoid such argument, because the point is
irrelevant.  We
>are trying to avoid accepting something the submitter has no rights to
claim theirs,
>and requesting them to explain where it came from, how it works, etc. would
be a
>better test than "does it look AI generated?  to everybody?", wouldn't it?

Can the cover page from the originator contain statements that:
a) I (whomever it is) has the legal authority to the submitted patch without
violating any copyright.
b) The code is original work and does not violate any IP laws where I
(whomever)
am located.
c) The code is not generated from AI and/or despite being AI generated, I
(whomever)
have verified that the code works as anticipated and does not contain AI
contents
trained from another code-base or project that might otherwise violate b),
and that
I (whomever) accept all responsibility for falsely making this statement.

This could be changed to an agreement maintained by the Conservancy prior to
Accepting any non-trivial contributions providing the agreement is
referenced in
Either the cover page or commit comments.