AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

I’m not a big AI fan but I do see it as just another tool in your toolbox. I wouldn’t really care how someone got to the end result that is a PR.

But I also think that if a maintainer asks you to jump before submitting a PR, you politely ask, “how high?”

It does matter how and where a PR comes from, because reviewers are fallible and finite, so trust enters the equation inevitably. You must ask "Do I trust where this came from?" And to answer that, you need to know where it come from.

If trust didn't matter, there wouldn't have been a need for the Linux Kernel team to ban the University of Minnesota for attempting to intentionally smuggle bugs through the PR process as part of an unauthorized social experiment. As it stands, if you / your PRs can't be trusted, they should not even be admitted to the review process.

I think this is an excellent example of how software is different from everything else that is copyright-able. If you look at how GenAI is being applied to "the arts" and how completely destructive it is to the visual mediums, it is clearly a completely different beast to code. "The artists" of visual art don't want AI trained on their work and competing with their work. I completely understand. The point of art is to be a personal interaction between artist and consumer. But, even though I'm quite skeptical of AI code gen on a practical standpoint, it really doesn't feel like the same existential threat.