From what I could tell, Tangled currently lacks guidelines outlining whether or not Pulls assisted or created by Generative AI are accepted, and if so, to what extent.
It would be beneficial if this information could be added to the Contribution Guidelines or to a separate file on the matter.
Perhaps something like:
Tangled does not differentiate between AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted contributions. All pull requests are reviewed under the same standards. Contributors are expected to fully understand and be able to justify the code they submit, regardless of how it was authored.
I think requiring contributors to mark contributions as AI-assisted would probably be a step in the right direction.
I have concerns about licensing though, these tools are known to regularly generate code snippets from projects with a different license*, and that might get Tangled (or any project) into trouble in the future depending on how some global rulings regarding this go. So, perhaps on the basis of that uncertainty, these contributions should probably be denied?
* as well as licensed works in general, not just code
If someone fails to adhere to contribution guidelines, I or another maintainer rewrite their contribution and future contributions are denied until further notice. If a point in the guidelines about AI is removed because there was no enforcement, the rest of the contribution guidelines may as well be useless as well.
Besides, I don't think the exact tool must be disclosed, but rather that an AI tool was used in general.
I personally think the line is where there is a choice. Google's AI overviews cannot officially be disabled, not without just going to a different search tab entirely.
However, things like GitHub Copilot are tools one can choose to use, or not.
The human details of "did they do it on purpose or not" can be handled on a per-pull/issue basis, because some may not even be aware of the reasons one might want to avoid such tools
Because this wasn't outlined in the main issue body, can a statement be made regarding the thoughts on legality and/or ethics of AI for writing code?
I am not asking for, nor expecting a full breakdown of the situation, but a statement regarding whether or not there are licensing concerns or ethical issues from the Tangled team regarding these tools. It would be much appreciated, thanks in advance.
We (as in, @wafrn.net) have disallowed AI contributions wholesale following in the footsteps of https://elementary.io.
We do not get into arguments about what is or isn't AI-assisted at all. We have a label for potentially AI-assisted PRs or issues according to our own judgement. If a contributor admits to using it, or we feel the risk is too high, we reject the contribution and/or close the issue.
No one wants to put time into trying to contribute AI-generated code if you create an environment that is actively hostile to doing so.
And, also, if we don't enforce this guideline, what use are any guidelines at all? We may as well let contributors do anything, merge anything, and have no quality control to begin with, if we don't stick to our values and set guidelines.
The last part is, in part, hyperbole, but I genuinely do believe that "people will use AI anyways" is not a reason to not have policies around it. Because the contribution guidelines are all about how and how not to contribute, and if we add a clause about AI and it isn't respected, we should take action, not let it slide because it is "inevitable" as I've heard so many people say regarding this topic.
Hi, there is now legal precedent in regards to copyright (and as such, licensing) that makes it difficult or impossible to claim copyright to AI-written or AI-assisted code.
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10922/LSB10922.8.pdf
Our position is that we hold all external pull requests to the same standard of review, whether they are AI-assisted or not. Ultimately, the patch owner is responsible for understanding and defending the code they submit, regardless of how it was produced.
We don鈥檛 currently distinguish between AI-generated and non-AI-generated contributions, but perhaps adding a short note to the contribution guidelines to clarify this expectation makes sense.