HiddeWhen robots are part of a process, their involvement MUST be identified.
Always identify LLM output ('got this from AI: ') and disclose images that were generated.
(updated this to remove the bit about code as it is less clear cut)
Jamie Teh@hdv I'm conflicted on this one. On one hand, I think transparency is important. On the other hand, if someone chooses to use AI to assist them, I don't think the standards of accountability or code review should be any different. The person submitting it is ultimately still fully accountable and responsible for the patch, and the reviewer should apply the same rigor as they always do. I could see a world where attributing AI has the opposite effect: a (very) misguided reviewer assumes it is more likely to be correct *because* AI is involved. @pikesley
Jake Archibald@jaffathecake @jcsteh @pikesley thanks, that all makes sense… I do wonder if a commit needs more scrutinity the more of it was generated, and without attribution there doesn't seem to be a way to know when to apply that extra scrutiny?
@hdv @jaffathecake @jcsteh @pikesley
FWIW as someone who reviews a lot of Firefox code (and is a bit unimpressed by AI coding), FF developers tend to disclose when they're using AI if they're not quite sure about what they're submitting.
That said, there's tons of bad human-written patches too, so the standards are pretty similar: If I don't understand the code you're sending me I'll request changes (be it "explain why this is the right approach" or "document stuff better" or...).
@hdv @jaffathecake @jcsteh @pikesley
The only real risk IMO is being overwhelmed with tons of crappy AI patches, but so far people have been reasonable with their usage.
The more common pattern I see is a coworker uploading an AI-written patch as work in progress and saying "Before wasting your time, I tried to fix X with Claude and it came up with this approach, not sure it's on the right track, can you take a look?", and that's honestly... fine? I would've asked directly but... :)