doc: refactor the AI guidelines - #65269
Conversation
The earlier version of the document contains duplications and has become logically disconnected after iteration. This patch wordsmiths it a bit to make it more coherent: - Merge policy points that have been repeated in the guidelines into the opening policy. - Remove redundant taglines. - Reword the paragraphs so that they appear more logical: -> decision making and accountability is human-only -> AI assistance is not prohibited -> disclosure and licensing -> verification and review requirement -> other off limits items (automation, good first issues) - Reword the guidelines to contextualize the suggestions with the use of AI instead of being generic. - Change the tone of the document to be more in line with other documents we have (e.g. avoid being too imperative or calling out "you" constantly) Signed-off-by: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com>
|
Review requested:
|
| every change they propose. The answer to "Why is X an improvement?" can | ||
| never be "I'm not sure. The AI did it." | ||
| The Node.js project does not prohibit the use of AI tools in contributions, but | ||
| when the contribution is generated with AI, the contributor must disclose the use |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think in the current text does not require disclosure and we did not expect mandatory disclosure.
And I think it is worth to keep "disclosure does not serve as a disclaimer of responsibility".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The previous wording was:
If AI tools assisted in generating a contribution, acknowledge that honestly.
The new wording is:
when the contribution is generated with AI, the contributor must disclose the use of such tools
IMO they are equivalent only that the first version (unnecessarily) assumes dishonesty and is rather imperative.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
disclosure does not serve as a disclaimer of responsibility
hmm yeah I was thinking maybe "Contributors must take full responsibility for their actions in the Node.js project" + the detailed the guidelines below is enough to cover, repeating responsibility multiple times feels rather repetitive..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Inserted
Disclosure about the use of AI does not serve as a disclaimer of this responsibility.
into the "must understand and explain" section, which I think is where it would've belonged in the first place.
I think the disclosure requirement was the consensus of the last PR, at least that was what If AI tools assisted in generating a contribution, acknowledge that honestly is supposed to mean. If we want to soften the wording to make disclosure non-mandatory, I think we need to look for new consensus. At least from my interpretation, when the code is generated by AI, disclosure is expected. If it's pure assistance but not generation, this is not necessary (otherwise every Google user needs to disclose the use of Gemini overview which can't be turned off..)
4b185d4 to
4783c93
Compare
The earlier version of the document contains duplications and has become logically disconnected after iteration. This patch wordsmiths it a bit to make it more coherent:
-> decision making and responsibility is human-only
-> AI assistance is not prohibited
-> disclosure and licensing
-> verification and review requirement
-> other off limits items (automation, good first issues)