[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241021191557.494ed725.quinq@fifth.space>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 19:15:57 +0200
From: Quentin Rameau <quinq@...th.space>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Proposed "AI" policies
Hi,
> Anything I'm missing or that seems like it should be changed?
> musl. These do not have clear authorship, are derived from models
> that are clearly derived from a plethora of copyrighted works
> without license or attribution, and thereby cannot be licensed by
> the submitter. Being that most patch contributions to musl are
Maybe that part above could be reworded a bit, although I believe what
you say is true, the problem is just that those are completely opaque
regarding training sources, and so cannot be proven of good faith
at all, enven if in practice it was actually trained
from truly righteous material.
> 2. Please DO NOT submit "AI generated" or otherwise automated bug
> reports without disclosing the provenance (or lack thereof). This
> wastes everybody's time. If you are using tooling to identify
> potential bugs, please either confirm before reporting that you
> have actually found a bug (not just that the tool said it's a bug),
> or clearly state in the report that it's unconfirmed, which tools
> you used, and why you think the alleged bug may be legitimate -- or
> if you don't know you're just asking whether it might be.
Maybe the bug reporting part should be emphasized on its own,
disregarding the source of it, I think that's valable for computers
and humans altogether.
Then the AI part could be an addition to it, instead of the inverse.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
