Paolo MelchiorreFeb 26

RE: https://hachyderm.io/@nedbat/116133445557306539

I got Ned's point, but I don’t think we can treat Claude (or similar tools) at the same level as a person.

We've never added tools (e.g. isort, Black, Ruff, ...) as co-authors of commits, even when they generated 100% of a commit.

Listing Claude as a co-author of a commit put it the same level as a person, but it's a tool.

The author of a commit is a person responsible for the code they submit, without shifting that responsibility to the tool, or worse, to the project maintainers.

#FOSS #AI

Show threadPaolo MelchiorreFeb 26

After thinking a bit more about Ned’s post and the discussion here, it really felt like the right moment to make expectations around AI-assisted contributions clearer in Django.

So I opened a proposal to add an AI/LLM contribution policy.

The idea isn’t to police tools, but to keep responsibility clearly human and reduce ambiguity for contributors and maintainers.

If you’re interested, have a look and share your thoughts:
https://forum.djangoproject.com/t/proposal-add-an-ai-llm-contribution-policy-to-django/44298

Proposal: Add an AI/LLM Contribution Policy to Django

If you use AI-generated content, you currently cannot claim copyright on it in the US. When coding, if you fail to disclose/disclaim exactly which parts were not written by a human, you forfeit your copyright claim on the entire codebase. This means copyright notices and even licenses that folks put on their vibe-coded GitHub repos are unenforceable. The AI-generated code, and possibly the whole project, becomes public domain. Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB1...

Django Forum
Show threadTim SchillingFeb 26
@paulox do you know if this something the AI research team has discussed?
Show threadPaolo Melchiorre

Hi @CodenameTim , I just opened the discussion on the forum now, it’s definitely something the AI WG could discuss there, but the forum felt like a good place to start and gather broader community input.

If it turns out we need something more focused, we can always take it back to the AI WG for deeper reflection.

Also… strange to read you this early in the morning 🙂

Feb 26 at 9:06amWeb
Show threadTim SchillingFeb 26
@paulox yeah, I had a bad night's worth of sleep and woke up a bit earlier than usual.
Show threadCalum Andrew MorrellFeb 26

@CodenameTim @paulox sleep is overrated (~4hrs).

I find the linked argument to be neither valid nor sound. As you point out, a tool is not a person and the pull requests are the responsibility of the person to ensure the code does as expected, not the tool. I suspect that using black poorly could result in an unwanted change just as much as Claude could.

The author is the person. Where relevant the tool that made the change can be mentioned in the PR body itself.

Show threadPaolo MelchiorreFeb 26

Thanks @calum for the contribution to the discussion.

If we agree that Claude is just a tool, like Black, isort, or Ruff, then we should also agree that tools shouldn’t list themselves as co-authors of commits.

We never had to make a rule about Black or isort doing that, because they never tried. If newer tools insist on adding themselves in “Co-authored-by”, an explicit rule may simply prevent that bad behavior.

#FOSS #AI

Show threadCalum Andrew MorrellFeb 26
@paulox this feels intuitively reasonable and the logic appears, at a cursory reading, sound. I've no doubt other opinions will show themselves, so it will be interesting to see where things go.
Show threadPaolo MelchiorreFeb 26
@CodenameTim I hope you can recover the sleep you lost! In my case, reading a demanding book before bed usually does the trick. I fall asleep very well after that.