@@ -9,7 +9,9 @@ programs can get information about what the Git project would like to
9
9
see in an application.
10
10
11
11
* Please read this page completely before focusing on a project or a
12
- microproject ideas, or microproject general information.*
12
+ microproject ideas, or microproject general information.
13
+ Specifically, also read the "AI guidelines" section to know our
14
+ stance regarding the usage of AI tools.*
13
15
14
16
15
17
## Microproject (required)
@@ -130,6 +132,110 @@ are interested in, it is a good idea to:
130
132
used for searching the mailing list and linking to previous
131
133
discussions.)
132
134
135
+ ## AI guidelines
136
+
137
+ The use of Artificial Intelligence related tools ("AI" or "AIs" for
138
+ short), like Large Language Models ("LLMs"), by developers is becoming
139
+ more and more popular, but that's not a reason to blindly use them,
140
+ especially when working on the Git project.
141
+
142
+ ### Legal issues
143
+
144
+ In general, it's not clear if AI generated code or documentation are
145
+ acceptable in the Git project. Authors contributing to Git are
146
+ required to "sign off" the patches they contribute, and to agree with
147
+ the Developer’s Certificate of Origin, also called DCO, (see
148
+ < https://git-scm.com/docs/SubmittingPatches#sign-off > ), while the DCO
149
+ says basically that authors of a patch should be sure about the origin
150
+ of its content.
151
+
152
+ As we cannot usually be sure how AIs have been trained and that they
153
+ are not just repeating proprietary existing code or documentation they
154
+ saw during their training, we cannot accept much AI generated code or
155
+ documentation in general. Now, if it's only a few lines to fix a bug
156
+ or to implement a common pattern or summarize something, and if that
157
+ looks specific enough to a current concrete problem a developer is
158
+ working on, that might be OK.
159
+
160
+ Anyway as the situation is not clear for the Git project and probably
161
+ many other open source projects, you should be very prudent regarding
162
+ this.
163
+
164
+ ### Be very careful with AI output
165
+
166
+ For a number of reasons, not just legal ones, developers should really
167
+ make sure that they treat what AIs produce very carefully. They
168
+ should:
169
+
170
+ - triple check everything, especially regarding our guidelines
171
+ (indent, style, commit message guidelines, etc, see especially the
172
+ SubmittingPatches and CodingGuidelines docs as well as the other
173
+ pages on this website) and the feedback reviewers already gave
174
+ them or others,
175
+
176
+ - build and test changes, using existing, new or manual tests, to
177
+ check that the changes are correct, perform well and don't produce
178
+ garbage output,
179
+
180
+ - doubt anything they don't fully understand, or anything that might
181
+ not match our guidelines or feedback, and
182
+
183
+ - fix, simplify, adapt, reword or change anything that is
184
+ suspicious, bloated, too formal, or that they don't understand, or
185
+ that doesn't match our guidelines or our feedback.
186
+
187
+ Yeah, AIs still often hallucinate or just produce bad code, commit
188
+ messages, documentation or output, even when you point out their
189
+ mistakes.
190
+
191
+ ### We don't accept AI output as-is
192
+
193
+ It's unacceptable to send us something that is obvious AI slop, or
194
+ that sounds overly formal or bloated, or that looks good on the
195
+ surface but makes no sense, or that senders don’t understand or cannot
196
+ explain. It just wastes our time and we cannot accept it. We want to
197
+ interact with and mentor humans, not AIs.
198
+
199
+ For example, it's unacceptable to have an AI generate a commit message
200
+ where it just describes what the code in the commit does, instead of
201
+ the purpose of the change, and then send that to us.
202
+
203
+ In general, it's unacceptable to send AI-generated patches or messages
204
+ as-is to the mailing list or to mentors' or developers' personal email
205
+ addresses. We won't consider candidates doing that.
206
+
207
+ For another, unfortunately common, example, it's unacceptable to send
208
+ us an application that has obviously been AI generated and doesn't
209
+ follow our guidelines or the feedback we previously gave to other
210
+ applicants. Those applications will be dropped.
211
+
212
+ ### Blindly using AI is far worse than not applying
213
+
214
+ As bad AI use is growing in general, not just to apply to mentoring
215
+ programs, more and more tools and ways are being developed to find out
216
+ and fight against bad AI use.
217
+
218
+ So people who apply by sending us AI generated output as-is, not only
219
+ waste their time, and our time, for no result, but they also leave
220
+ evidence on our mailing list archive of their bad behavior.
221
+
222
+ For example, employers already use social media screening tools or
223
+ candidate assessment software when hiring people, and it's likely that
224
+ those tools, which often already use AI, are, or will be able to find
225
+ out soon about such bad behavior.
226
+
227
+ ### Better ways to use AIs
228
+
229
+ Developers would often likely get better results, learn more and have
230
+ a better overall experience by asking AIs to only explain things, and
231
+ guide them step by step towards producing a solution by themselves,
232
+ rather than by asking for a full solution that they would then mostly
233
+ copy-paste.
234
+
235
+ They can also use AIs to help with debugging, or with checking for
236
+ obvious mistakes, things that can be improved, things that don't match
237
+ our style, guidelines or our feedback, before sending it to us.
238
+
133
239
## Note about the number of slots
134
240
135
241
The Git organization usually has very limited mentoring capacity.
0 commit comments