I'm on with the allow list(1) or option 2. 3 just isn't realistic anymore.
Patrick
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 3:09 PM Caleb Rackliffe
wrote:
> I haven't participated much here, but my vote would be basically #1, i.e.
> an "allow list" with a clear procedure for expansion.
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 20
I haven't participated much here, but my vote would be basically #1, i.e.
an "allow list" with a clear procedure for expansion.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 4:05 PM Ariel Weisberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We could, but if the allow list is binding then it's still an allow list
> with some guidance on how to
Couldn't our official stance be a combination of 1 and 2? i.e. "Here's an allow
list. If you're using something not on that allow list, here's some basic
guidance and maybe let us know how you tried to mitigate some of this risk so
we can update our allow list w/some nuance".
On Mon, Jun 16, 20
Hi,
We could, but if the allow list is binding then it's still an allow list with
some guidance on how to expand the allow list.
If it isn't binding then it's guidance so still option 2 really.
I think the key distinction to find some early consensus on if we do a binding
allow list or guidanc
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025, at 3:48 PM, Jeremiah Jordan wrote:
> Where are you getting this from? From the OpenAI terms of use:
> https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use/
Direct from the ASF legal mailing list discussion I linked to in my original
email calling this out
https://lists.apache.org
>
> I respectfully mean that contributors, reviewers, and committers can't
> feasibly understand and enforce the ASF guidelines.
>
If this is true, then the ASF is in a lot of trouble and you should bring
it up with the ASF board.
How many people are aware that if you get code from OpenAI direct
Hi,
I am not saying you said it, but I respectfully mean that contributors,
reviewers, and committers can't feasibly understand and enforce the ASF
guidelines. We would be another link in a chain of people abdicating
responsibility starting with LLM vendors serving up models that reproduce
cop
So the general concern we're talking about is identifying/avoiding cases in
which a community member has contributed code generated with the support of a
model that has reproduced training data verbatim, posing copyright risk to the
Apache Cassandra project.
Work in this area seems early, but t
Hi,
As PMC members/committers we aren't supposed to abdicate this to legal or to
contributors. Despite the fact that we aren't equipped to solve this problem we
are supposed to be making sure that code contributed is non-infringing.
This is a quotation from Roman Shaposhnik from this legal thre
I don’t think I said we should abdicate responsibility? I said the key
point is that contributors, and more importantly reviewers and committers
understand the ASF guidelines and hold all code to those standards. Any
suspect code should be blocked during review. As Roman says in your quote,
this i
> Ultimately it's the contributor's (and committer's) job to ensure that
their contributions meet the bar for acceptance
To me this is the key point. Given how pervasive this stuff is becoming, I
don’t think it’s feasible to make some list of tools and enforce it. Even
without getting into extra
> To clarify are you saying that we should not accept AI generated code until
> it has been looked at by a human
I think AI code would normally be the same process as normal code; the author
and reviewers all reviewed the code; I am not against AI code in this context.
> then written again wit
Hi,
To clarify are you saying that we should not accept AI generated code until it
has been looked at by a human and then written again with different "wording"
to ensure that it doesn't directly copy anything?
Or do you mean something else about the quality of "vibe coding" and how we
shouldn
> fine tuning encourage not reproducing things verbatim
> I think not producing copyrighted output from your training data is a
> technically feasible achievement for these vendors so I have a moderate level
> of trust they will succeed at it if they say they do it.
Some team members and I discu
14 matches
Mail list logo
