I guess I should be more hands-on with the text:
AI assistants can be helpful when drafting code or documentation, but they also introduce specific risks that contributors must consider. These tools generate output based on patterns learned from large training datasets, and may produce material that is derived from copyrighted or licensed sources. Such derivation can occur even when the resulting text or code is extensively rewritten or does not resemble the original in form or wording.
Because the PSF can only accept contributions that the contributor has the legal right to license, all submitted material must be free of copyright or licensing conflicts, including material produced with the assistance of AI tools. Contributors are responsible for ensuring that their submissions meet this requirement.
Above part seems reasonable. (This isn’t legal advice.) But then:
-
Why not state next that you doubt with current LLMs, any contributor would be able to ensure this? It seemed like you share those doubts, based on posts above. Wouldn’t a risk-informing policy mention that?
-
I also wonder if it’s fair to expect reviewers to spot LLM plagiarism. Therefore the followup section that seemingly implies they should try, worries me too.
-
That leaves the question what other process could be suggested that isn’t a ban.
Anyway, I’m not a lawyer, I don’t want to suggest actual policy text. But I hope this explains at what exact point my concerns begin.