From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 281A54FD54 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2025 12:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C51C68ECB1; Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:44:41 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mail-ed1-f45.google.com (mail-ed1-f45.google.com [209.85.208.45]) by ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73A6068EC73 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:44:35 +0300 (EEST) Received: by mail-ed1-f45.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-607cf70b00aso11298208a12.2 for ; Tue, 01 Jul 2025 05:44:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1751373874; x=1751978674; darn=ffmpeg.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=8MBfJPhVmpp/X9X+lxuBuY+IsiyUernsErV7Htuyeco=; b=SAR/Yj5oi0BdqzOuUiHPdGh82ImcbKlmQIOAFMXjf/3iberd7eCq5BcNGIZ5jIVH+9 G2F1i9cqn/Jt+so79QNnUuIIPR8O8jX9LPCUk9/+5E6SU/c9g9kV77AWYBogBHoCYgKS HYF5kReCej66k8yeodLi5Coq2rsMFWBEJNPlbb1LH4CrxQ4pbyAdM6Gf/tpT8SZUAsmn rSLH9u5NszhD6uOQ+2EaBoV3Aip4UxU0NhGdpAFDfYTfPK2kvC2vVrFwyDcUAAsUxT0K +giEutmGqmXJjMx7pFTFcy12S0s9NvVFAWeUQKhM+F1Q4Rt1KsoapbmBJns/goWLRUnB rD1A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1751373874; x=1751978674; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=8MBfJPhVmpp/X9X+lxuBuY+IsiyUernsErV7Htuyeco=; b=j7pkmdnXnyjwZAKUe3BDxRAdp9PvR86Su+JNQPyAYqn/0SkcgwOW0AZ3rZF5TEGFdk 3511iZ7dj2s1j+b+Klhk/PevhiWGeR3Mmp0I9PmXEW4fb2Ib8XTEqmE0Pt3h+okGQMfd l4kFTarVTb28tJdYc89PEGG3mWday0t7s55IPj/BL3k6mMbuCEjm9TEYtlz6irj0+aVu EvloFBuQiafzcrF7aHz9GcewaHmV2WIqmK7ApAoVLclRX2AAD1TamKrQbEwZZIuxBuEC gbKBrQkRivZaCoJabHK5gmxl+qNG1TUBVQRHYzpKjKylRrNlO89veHbppEUXpn0ghH3s G3Bw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyB0cgftOP5dxpRB4wI6AjwTCNtXAPDyhgxtJeRRLXP6SRIX0eW YGuRSqtaRis8GmXqdxl6k+opIgGn+NIGpHfe8yVdIxDkFnmdS5MFLv0zYAFZFO8hyE6vKSOT5Jz HZoKXTPmo7+6AlCeQzlBuOnQh+b4qpb2oSgtt X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctahOl6IqmC4D+vIYrK0uyHue5c6rFYJTmFyZhAwzLfBAbR8Trjb9QPPzVXcBg +XyNTGCHV+QigbU7iZ9iMa9L11UIwcnV/7+4hhIpqhjlReoE8LfMslM4/H58sE+VFJHW3YfboU8 ZlpnE/MUqCVKfTFGemYXSwlhwALEGsMSZLedQf3nQm X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH1CEs1HYuRga19tvKtrYnhP/CLoopGUZY9xfOYhydjqGIJ2khwP7u88NQoeOAjGMqUAz9JuUX/+POKFlLjTSE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:229b:b0:602:201:b46e with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-60c88e17b83mr11182839a12.31.1751373873310; Tue, 01 Jul 2025 05:44:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Kacper Michajlow Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 14:44:15 +0200 X-Gm-Features: Ac12FXywYmmEi8WLlYT_2qsg3wk3_fkjUEFdLv8WX9-riHVlO3orC3ys2foow14 Message-ID: To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Introducing policies regarding "AI" contributions X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Cc: Alexander Strasser Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 at 12:58, Alexander Strasser via ffmpeg-devel wrote: > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Alexander Strasser > To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 12:58:23 +0200 > Subject: [RFC] Introducing policies regarding "AI" contributions > Hi all, > > I do not like the branding of the LLMs as AI, thus I will for now > continue to call it "AI" in quotes. I'm open for better terms. > > It was just yesterday brought up on IRC in #ffmpeg-devel that there > was at least one, marked attempt to include "AI" generated code[1]. > > At least I would say that this particular patch series was rejected, > but there were was no explicit discussion and clear statement about > "AI" generated content; especially code. > > Thus I want this thread to start a discussion, that eventually leads > to a policy about submitting and integrating "AI" generated content. I don't think labeling code as "AI" matters that much. Let's ignore licensing/legal issues for now. What's important is the code itself and its quality. It doesn't matter how it was created. Whether by a human, "AI" or something else. The key is the final product. "AI" is just a tool, and like any tool, it can be used well or poorly. How you use it may be completely different between "operators". I think the "AI" label exists because the code that LLMs produce is often incomplete, low quality, and a pile of spaghetti that somehow works for a single use case. but is far from being a sane, production ready implementation. Anyone who has used these tools knows their limitations and what they can or cannot do. That said, if "AI" code means low quality code, then by all means, it should be rejected. This applies to human, alien, or "AI" generated code. There shouldn't be a different metric for "AI" code. If "AI" (and its "operator") produces high quality code, there's no reason to reject it. After all, how can you even detect "AI" code? If the code, regardless of who or what wrote it, follows project guidelines and is overall high quality, that's all that matters. P.S. I don't like those "This code was fully made by an LLM" statements and the like. Who cares? Maybe some investor who's pushing this. But from a technical point of view, there's no difference. After all, you don't start your patchset by saying, "This code was written in Vim with on Arch Linux, on an ergonomic split keyboard, with an XYZ monitor.". - Kacper > Leaving all ethical issues aside for a moment I still see 2 very big > problems with AI generated code: > > * looks generally plausible but is often subtly wrong > * leading to more work, regressions and costs > * which often lands on a different group of people (other > projects, reviewers, bug finders, bug fixers, etc.) > * which are sometimes delayed for quite some time increasing > the costs of fixing them > * license/copyright violations > * this might be sometimes a non-issue with small changes > * but especially for complete components the risk seems high > > There is a lot more to the topic and I probably forgot to bring up > many more important aspects and details. Please feel free to bring > more things up in the discussion! > > There was a preparation in the musl project to put up a policy[2], > it has not yet been finalized and realized as far as I understand. > > It also brings up the point, that it is not really related to > recent "AI" tech, but more to the origin of work and its handling. > Unfortunately "AI" made problems with this a lot more common. > > > Best regards, > Alexander > > 1. https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2025-April/342146.html > 2. https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2024/10/19/3 > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Alexander Strasser via ffmpeg-devel > To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > Cc: Alexander Strasser > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 12:58:23 +0200 > Subject: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Introducing policies regarding "AI" contributions > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".