Relax AI policy#641
Conversation
AdrianVovk
left a comment
AdrianVovk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion to make it clearer that the reviewers have ultimate authority to determine what is slop, and that there's no room to argue with them
travier
left a comment
travier
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with Adrian's suggestions as well
|
cc @CodedOre as github doesn't want me to mark you as a reviewer |
|
So I see this is draft yet a bunch of people commenting on it. Is this going to be merged soon? If so what is the hurry here? As I see it, it reintroduces room for disagreements and would waste our time again and the slop submissions fest is still ongoing, so seems too soon to me. I said in the issue to wait. It's also problematic if we change a policy every month. |
|
There's no hurry but the direct AI ban caused downstream waves across communities dependent on Flathub. So yes, I would like to arrive at something we're fine with this month.
We never formally announced the change in the first place, unless my Mastodon account counts, so I don't think it's a big deal. |
Where is that? It'd be useful to know who has been blocked from what and which downstream has been affected in what way to know the motivation. |
|
No one was blocked from anything – but some people in GNOME circles are unhappy as they claim the policy to be too explicit (even if the interlinear tension states the intent is "no slop, legit projects with some LLM usage probably fine"), affecting their Circles program, with similar concerns raised within Ublue, questioning if explicit ban isn't pushing flatpak/flathub into irrelevance. All discussions happening in the hallway track. |
Yes that would be what I want to know. What is something that got blocked by this? I'd like to know if that would have been accepted otherwise or would have failed to clear the bar anyways.
The submission queue disagrees with that clearly and I don't think changing policy to (and/or) fight to stay relevant is a correct motivation for this. I think what would work is if there was something legit that got blocked. |
A potential Circle submission is believed not to be free from AI-generated code, and it has to be submitted to Flathub for Circle inclusion. That's as specific I can get.
It's also about what didn't get submitted at all because authors assumed their LLM usage will prevent publishing. Random examples: https://lemonade-sdk.github.io/flatpak/ or whatever appears developer-approved in https://flatpark.org/. We don't have a magic wand to say who else skipped Flathub. |
As far as I can see they don't allow AI generated code. The "other indications of AI-generated output" line falls under "having AI-generated code" to me.
Lemonade doesn't work as an example as Claude is the number one committer in that repo surpassing humans at ~130 commits and ~90k lines changed.
That's 5 out of 8 developer approved apps who will not benefit from the policy in this PR as they are very significantly AI generated and don't fall under "minor uses". Ironically what would have helped it was the original text I had last year or having nothing at all. I am struggling to find a proper justification here. The last time it was meant to help the reviewers. Now it's getting partially undone within a month so not helping the reviewers fully any more. Is the current wording meant to help any of the above? If so then it doesn't reflect that and #641 (comment) holds. |
|
I don't think this is about significantly AI generated apps, but more about applications where the maintainer may have accepted some AI generated code and does not feel confident saying in a review that there is no AI generated code in their application, thus they don't submit it. I am not concerned about massively AI generated apps going to another remote. Good for them. But for applications where AI generated content is marginal or unspecified, a complete ban hurts. To be clear, I was initially fully on-board with the general ban, but I've changed my mind following the discussions. I still think (as this updated policy still says) that all submission PRs and all issue & PR interactions should NOT be AI generated at all. |
The only thing I can think of from my inbox was aaif-goose/goose#6602 (comment) but I don't have made up my mind if we would want that app |
You asked for examples so I provided them. Are you expecting me to spend time asking around social media to learn who decided not to submit their app at all? I'm only proving the point of you not knowing what could have been submitted.
The goal, whatever the final wording will be, is to keep the door open for LLM-assisted apps while giving reviewers a simple way of rejecting obvious slop. It's not what the pre-ban version accomplished either. |
Deploying documentation with
|
| Latest commit: |
e892c27
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://deeac4d5.documentation-962.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://ai-disclosure.documentation-962.pages.dev |
6 participants
see #620 for earlier discussion
This also implies a new checkbox in the submission form for AI usage disclosure. Long term, we're going to switch to a separate submission web service with canned responses and less human touch, as I don't find the current approach sustainable for anyone.