upvote

points

by coffeeaddict112 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby ghboo092710 hours ago|
next
[-]
From February to 09-24 the policy was "human in the loop". Any tool was fine as long as the contributor read the code and could answer questions about it.
reply
upvoteby skydhash12 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Banning does not imply verification. The policy is just a warning. So now you know, if they suspect that a PR is AI-generated, then there may be further consequences. I don’t think someone is going to apply a stamp on each PR.

The most egregious examples are always lazy (big diff, lengthy descriptions, weird phrasing,…). Now there’s a section in the policy to point to for the quick rejection.

reply
upvoteby rfgplk12 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
No, you retain full authorship of your code regardless of how it's generated.

> My code is clearly AI "assisted"

No such thing, it's 100% your code, regardless of how it came to be.

reply
upvoteby smithofsmiths11 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The discussion is not about ownership of the code, that doesn't interest the people who have written the policy in question.

"Assisted" does not necessarily mean "authored", which is the point of the comment you're replying to; helping you review the code is "assistance", even if no code was written.

Curiously, https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/387#... shows that at least some contributors realize the vagueness of the policy, but they don't seem to care, which is rather unfortunate.

reply
upvoteby RunSet9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It is doubtful whether anyone can claim copyright over LLM-generated code since it was not created by any human and the "training" does not preserve provenance.

Possibilities range from "public domain" to "the cancer Microsoft accused GPL-licensed code of being". In no plausible scenario does the person who pressed the "generate slop" button become the copyright holder.

reply