GCC steering committee announces AI policy
摘要
GCC 指导委员会宣布接受 AI 贡献政策，该政策由 GCC AI 政策工作组推荐。政策拒绝包含 LLM 生成内容或由此衍生的具有法律意义的贡献，其法律意义阈值沿用 GNU 项目维护者指南中约 15 行代码 / 文本的定义；但维护者可自行决定是否接受 LLM 生成的具有法律意义的测试用例。政策不禁止将 LLM 用于研究、分析、缺陷发现与报告、补丁审查等，只要输出不进入贡献。委员会表示政策将定期复审并可能演变。文章还附有大量读者评论，讨论该政策是否会导致隐蔽 AI 使用、规则执行机制、项目所有者设定规则的权利等话题。
荐读理由
GCC 正式把 LLM 生成内容挡在贡献门外（约15行以上即算法律上重要），但研究、分析、审补丁仍可用——这直接改变你评估开源项目 AI 使用边界的预期，也提醒你提交代码时别踩红线。
原文
The GCC steering committee has announced that it has accepted an AI contributions policy recommended by the GCC AI policy working group.
The policy, in part, states that the project will decline any "legally significant contributions which include LLM-generated content or are derived from LLM-generated content". It uses the definition of "legally significant" from the GNU Project maintainer guidelines, which holds that the threshold is "around 15 lines of code and/or text" to qualify as significant for copyright purposes. GCC maintainers may, however, choose to accept legally significant test cases that are generated by an LLM.
The policy does not forbid use of LLMs for research, analysis, bug discovery and reporting, patch review, etc. as long as the output is not included in contributions. The committee says that it expects the policy will evolve and will be revisited periodically.
Rules
Posted Jul 29, 2026 22:56 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (11 responses)
Rules
Posted Jul 29, 2026 23:31 UTC (Wed) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link] (10 responses)
Rules
Posted Jul 29, 2026 23:38 UTC (Wed) by alx.manpages (subscriber, #145117) [Link] (9 responses)
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 0:38 UTC (Thu) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link] (8 responses)
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 1:32 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 2:06 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (6 responses)
no-AI policies will produce covert AI use
I seriously doubt that. I think it's much more likely that people who want to use AI just won't contribute to projects with no-AI policies.
And as I wrote elsewhere... if someone does use AI covertly, it's extremely likely they'll be found out, blocked from the project, and that their reputation will suffer. This is the enforcement mechanism, just like a speeding ticket doesn't prevent speeding before the fact, but it tends to deter it after the fact.
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 4:32 UTC (Thu) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link] (2 responses)
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 9:47 UTC (Thu) by alx.manpages (subscriber, #145117) [Link]
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 14:28 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]
No, they may not be found out on the basis of the code they write. But if they're asked questions about the code and they show they don't understand it, or it somehow slips out they've used AI, they'll be found out.
In my experience, people who deliberately break rules are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, and they eventually slip up and get found out.
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 12:49 UTC (Thu) by wtarreau (subscriber, #51152) [Link] (2 responses)
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 13:00 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 13:14 UTC (Thu) by alx.manpages (subscriber, #145117) [Link]
Rules
Posted Jul 29, 2026 22:57 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (14 responses)
If someone lies about contributions to a free software project, they will most likely eventually be found out and then blocked from further contributions.
AI is here to stay, sure. But so is Microsoft Windows. I don't use Microsoft Windows and I don't use AI. I don't accept patches to my hobby projects to port them to Windows, and I don't accept AI-generated contributions either.
What do people pushing expect to accomplish?
I can't speak for the GCC developers, but what I expect to accomplish is to prevent AI-generated contributions from making their way into my projects. I have my own reasons for this, which you are free to disagree with... but the project owner gets to make the rules.
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 13:27 UTC (Thu) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link] (13 responses)
Enough
Posted Jul 30, 2026 13:54 UTC (Thu) by jzb (editor, #7867) [Link] (2 responses)
Enough
Posted Jul 30, 2026 14:01 UTC (Thu) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link] (1 responses)
Enough
Posted Jul 30, 2026 14:04 UTC (Thu) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link]
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 14:30 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (9 responses)
That's a naive and outdated view of how these tools work
I never said they'd be found out because it would be obvious from the code. But in a social environment, it's hard to maintain a lie for a long time. They'd be found out (for example) if they're questioned about the code and show they don't really understand it, or they somehow let slip they used AI, or whatever. They are likely to be discovered by non-technical means.
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 14:39 UTC (Thu) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link] (8 responses)
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 14:50 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (3 responses)
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 15:17 UTC (Thu) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link] (2 responses)
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 15:50 UTC (Thu) by Klaasjan (subscriber, #4951) [Link] (1 responses)
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 16:01 UTC (Thu) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link]
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 15:15 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (3 responses)
Why wouldn't a competent programmer understand the code they are submitting, just because it was written with the help of an LLM, in general?
Because they didn't write it? If someone asks "Why did you do it this way; can you explain the reasoning behind the approach?" I suspect it would be harder to answer if you didn't actually write the code.
But anyway, I am pretty confident a rule violation would eventually find out because rule-breakers are notoriously bad at hiding the fact that they have broken rules.
Also it certainly happened to me, and I bet to most people working on complex projects too, to not fully understand the code I manually wrote
Oh sure. That happens to me a lot. But only with code I wrote a long time ago and haven't looked at for a while. It's never happened to me that I've written code and then not understood it a couple of days later.
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 15:23 UTC (Thu) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link] (2 responses)
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 15:30 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (1 responses)
I suspect. I have run a bunch of software projects, including owning a software company for 19 years, but this was pre-AI. And I could almost always tell when someone was doing something shady (in terms of any violation of company rules, not specifically software development.) People have tells.
But anyway. A project is free to set its own rules. If you don't agree with them, don't contribute to the project. If you break the rules anyway, then you're acting a bit sociopathically and we can't 100% protect ourselves from sociopaths. All we can do is our best, and the fact that we can't protect ourselves 100% from rule-breakers doesn't mean we shouldn't set rules.
Really? You never found out that some internal API you use has, nested several layers deep, a side effect that you didn't notice?
That's normal bug-hunting. It's not "not understanding the code". I've never been in a position where I've written code and then been unable to explain why I wrote it a certain way or why I picked the algorithms and data structures that I did.
Rules
Posted Jul 30, 2026 15:57 UTC (Thu) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link]
Compiler crashes on LLM Code?
Posted Jul 30, 2026 7:12 UTC (Thu) by taladar (subscriber, #68407) [Link] (1 responses)
Compiler crashes on LLM Code?
Posted Jul 30, 2026 8:39 UTC (Thu) by hvd (guest, #128680) [Link]
Presumably ...
Posted Jul 30, 2026 14:55 UTC (Thu) by lmb (subscriber, #39048) [Link] (1 responses)
Presumably ...
Posted Jul 30, 2026 15:19 UTC (Thu) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link]
这条对你有帮助吗？