zlacker

You’re completely incorrect. People care a lot about where code came from. They need to be able to trust that code you’re contributing was not copied from a project under AGPLv3, if the project you’re contributing to is under a different license.

Stop trying to equate LLM-generated code with indexing-based autocomplete. They’re not the same thing at all: LLM-generated code is equivalent to code copied off Stack Overflow, which is also something you’d better not be attempting to fraudulently pass off as your own work.

>>eschat+(OP)
I’m not equating any type of code generation. I’m saying that as a maintainer you have to evaluate any submission on the merits, not on a series of yes/no questions provided by the submitter. And your own judgement is influenced by what you know about the submitter.

>>eschat+(OP)
How does an "I didn't use AI" pledge provide any assurance/provenance that submitted code wasn't copied from an AGPLv3 reference?

>>koolba+xl
And I’m saying, as a maintainer, you have to and are doing both, even if you don’t think you are.

For example, you either make your contributors attest that their changes are original or that they have the right to contribute their changes—or you assume this of them and consider it implicit in their submission.

What you (probably) don’t do is welcome contributions that the contributors do not have the right to make.

>>fluidc+BF
It doesn’t, it provides an assurance (but not provenance) you didn’t use AI.

Assuring you didn’t include any AGPLv3 code in your contribution is exactly the same kind of assurance. It also doesn’t provide any provenance.

Conflating assurance with provenance is bogus because the former is about making a representation that, if false, exposes the person making it to liability. For most situations that’s sufficient that provenance isn’t needed.