AI Tooling Must Be Disclosed for Contributions

Because of the perception that anything touched by AI must be uncreative slop made without effort. In the case of this article, why else are they asking for disclosure if not to filter and dismiss such contributions?

The only legitimate reason to make a rule is to produce some outcome. If your rule does not result in that outcome, of what use is the rule?

Will this rule result in people disclosing "AI" (whatever that means) contributions? Will it mitigate some kind of risk to the project? Will it lighten maintainer load?

No. It can't. People are going to use the tools anyway. You can't tell. You can't stop them. The only outcome you'll get out of a rule like this is making people incrementally less honest.

You get someone that didn't use AI getting accused of using AI and eventually telling people to screw off and contributing nothing.

Example where this kind of contribution was accepted and valuable, inside this ghostty project https://x.com/mitchellh/status/1957930725996654718

Everyone promoting LLMs, especially on HN, claim that they're expertly using them by using artisanal prompts and carefully examining the output but.. I'm honestly skeptical. Sure, some people are doing that (I do it from time to time). But I've seen enough slop to think that more people are throwing around code that they barely understand than these advocates care to admit .

Those same people will swear that they did due diligence, but why would they admit otherwise? And do they even know what proper due diligence is? And would they still be getting their mythical 30%-50% productivity boost if they were actually doing what they claimed they were doing?

And that is a problem. I cannot have a productive code review with someone that does not even understand what their code is actually doing, much less trade offs that were made in an implementation (because they did not consider any trade offs at all and just took what the LLM produced). If they can't have a conversation about the code at all because they didn't bother to read or understand anything about it, then theres nothing I can do except close the PR and tell them to actually do the work this time.

That’s exactly opposite of what the author is saying. He mentions that [if the code is not good, or you are a beginner] he will help you get to finish line, but if it’s LLM code, he shouldn’t be putting effort because there’s no human on the other side.

It makes sense to me.

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.

Presumably if a contributor repeatedly made bad PRs that didn't do what they said, introduced bugs, scribbled pointlessly on the codebase, and when you tried to coach or clarify at best they later forgot everything you said and at worst outright gaslit and lied to you about their PRs... you would reject or decline to review their PRs, right? You'd presumably ban the outright.

Well that's exactly what commercial LLM products, with the aid of less sophisticated users, have already done to the maintainers of many large open source projects. It's not that they're not trusted-- they should be distrusted with ample cause.

So what if the above banned contributor kept getting other people to mindlessly submit their work and even proxy communication through -- evading your well earned distrust and bans? Asking people to at least disclose that they were acting on behalf of the distrusted contributor would be the least you would do, I hope? Or even asking them to disclose if and to what extent their work was a collaboration with a distrusted contributor?

Citation needed, I don’t think the printing press and gpt are in any way comparable.

Imagine seeing “rm -rf / is a function that returns “Hello World!” and thinking “this is the same thing as the printing press”

https://bsky.app/profile/lookitup.baby/post/3lu2bpbupqc2f

In some cases sure but it can also create the situation where people just waste time for nothing (think AI interviewing other AIs - this might generate GDP by people purchasing those services but I think we can all agree that this scenario is just wasting time and resource without improving society).

If it's exactly the same as what you'd have written manually, and you are confident it works, then what's the point of disclosure?

It’s explained right there in the PR:

> The disclosure is to help maintainers assess how much attention to give a PR. While we aren't obligated to in any way, I try to assist inexperienced contributors and coach them to the finish line, because getting a PR accepted is an achievement to be proud of. But if it's just an AI on the other side, I don't need to put in this effort, and it's rude to trick me into doing so.

That is not true of books, search engines, stack overflow, or talking to a worker, because in all those cases you still had to do the work yourself of comprehending, preparing, and submitting the patch. This is also why they ask for a disclosure of “the extent to which AI assistance was used”. What about that isn’t clear to you?

I believe it won’t be long before we have exceptional “programmers” who have mastered the art of vibe coding. If that does become the de facto standard for 80% programming done, then it’s not a long stretch from there that we might skip programming languages altogether. I’m simply suggesting that if you’re not going to examine the code, perhaps someone will eliminate that additional layer or step altogether, and we might be pleasantly surprised by the final result.

"In the Office’s view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans." "In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” 24 The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work.25 This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry." "If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it."

The office has been quite consistent that works containing both human-made and AI-made elements will be registerable only to the extent that they contain human-made elements.

That is, it suggests that even if there are elements of human-generated content in a larger machine-generated work, the combined work as a whole is not eligible for copyright protection. Printed page iii of that PDF talks a bit more about that:

  * Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
  * Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Just to be sure that I wasn't misremembering, I went through part 2 of the report and back to the original memorandum[1] that was sent out before the full report issued. I've included a few choice quotes to illustrate my point:

"These are no longer hypothetical questions, as the Office is already receiving and examining applications for registration that claim copyright in AI-generated material. For example, in 2018 the Office received an application for a visual work that the applicant described as “autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine.” 7 The application was denied because, based on the applicant’s representations in the application, the examiner found that the work contained no human authorship. After a series of administrative appeals, the Office’s Review Board issued a final determination affirming that the work could not be registered because it was made “without any creative contribution from a human actor.”"

"More recently, the Office reviewed a registration for a work containing human-authored elements combined with AI-generated images. In February 2023, the Office concluded that a graphic novel comprised of human-authored text combined with images generated by the AI service Midjourney constituted a copyrightable work, but that the individual images themselves could not be protected by copyright. "

"In the Office’s view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans."

"In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work. This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry."

"If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it."[1], pgs 2-4

---

On the odd chance that somehow the Copyright Office had reversed itself I then went back to part 2 of the report:

"As the Office affirmed in the Guidance, copyright protection in the United States requires human authorship. This foundational principle is based on the Copyright Clause in the Constitution and the language of the Copyright Act as interpreted by the courts. The Copyright Clause grants Congress the authority to “secur[e] for limited times to authors . . . the exclusive right to their . . . writings.” As the Supreme Court has explained, “the author [of a copyrighted work] is . . . the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection.”

"No court has recognized copyright in material created by non-humans, and those that have spoken on this issue have rejected the possibility. "

"In most cases, however, humans will be involved in the creation process, and the work will be copyrightable to the extent that their contributions qualify as authorship." -- [2], pgs 15-16

---

TL;DR If you make something with the assistance of AI, you still have to be personally involved and contribute more than just a prompt in order to receive copyright, and then you will receive protection only over such elements of originality and authorship that you are responsible for, not those elements which the AI is responsible for.

--- [1] https://copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf [2] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

Fraud and misrepresentation are always options for contributors, at some point one needs to trust that they’re adhering to the rules that they agreed to adhere to.

If that were the case, why would this rule be necessary, if it indeed is the substance that matters? AI generated anything has a heavy slop stigma right now, even if the content is solid.

This would make for an interesting experiment to submit a PR that was absolute gold but with the disclaimer it was generated with help of ChatGPT. I would almost guarantee it would be received with skepticism and dismissals.