It looks like a knee-jerk reaction by some "AI" hater rather than a well thought out request.
- 7 instances of the word "shit". I don't mind swearing, but it is indicative of the author being maybe a bit too emotional for a technical proposal.
- It is unnecessarily broad. Not using AI to create bug reports? What if you use AI tech to find a bug? Are you not allowed to report it? The stated issue here seems to be mostly about code completion, but it is stretched to everything AI-related, everywhere.
The point raised are copyright, quality and ethics, which are valid points, but not specific to AI.
Copyright: You have the same problem when copy-pasting code, and people do that, you can't really single out AI. Instead of banning AI, a more sensible guideline would be to just be aware of copyright when importing code from elsewhere, including AI generated code, but also copy/pasting from online sources (ex: StackOverflow) and using external libraries. There are tools to check for copyright compliance.
Quality: AI-generated code is often lower quality, but so is code written by bad coders, judge by quality of contribution, not by how it is done. As for the "we can't really rely on all our contributors being aware of the risks", maybe start by picking contributors you can rely on. And if you think they may not be aware of the risks, tell them about the risks rather than saying "you can't do that".
Ethics: I don't know what Gentoo stands for, but I'm guessing it is mostly about making a good source-based Linux distribution. Don't hijack the project for your own goals. Now, I have no problem with a Linux distribution that has "no AI" as one of its core values, but it doesn't have to be Gentoo.
> Not using AI to create bug reports? What if you use AI tech to find a bug? Are you not allowed to report it?
I mean, the hot new trend seems to be people reporting completely imaginary bugs that some AI tool thought it saw to projects, so, eh, I can see where they're coming from there.
- 7 instances of the word "shit". I don't mind swearing, but it is indicative of the author being maybe a bit too emotional for a technical proposal.
- It is unnecessarily broad. Not using AI to create bug reports? What if you use AI tech to find a bug? Are you not allowed to report it? The stated issue here seems to be mostly about code completion, but it is stretched to everything AI-related, everywhere.
The point raised are copyright, quality and ethics, which are valid points, but not specific to AI.
Copyright: You have the same problem when copy-pasting code, and people do that, you can't really single out AI. Instead of banning AI, a more sensible guideline would be to just be aware of copyright when importing code from elsewhere, including AI generated code, but also copy/pasting from online sources (ex: StackOverflow) and using external libraries. There are tools to check for copyright compliance.
Quality: AI-generated code is often lower quality, but so is code written by bad coders, judge by quality of contribution, not by how it is done. As for the "we can't really rely on all our contributors being aware of the risks", maybe start by picking contributors you can rely on. And if you think they may not be aware of the risks, tell them about the risks rather than saying "you can't do that".
Ethics: I don't know what Gentoo stands for, but I'm guessing it is mostly about making a good source-based Linux distribution. Don't hijack the project for your own goals. Now, I have no problem with a Linux distribution that has "no AI" as one of its core values, but it doesn't have to be Gentoo.