Hey folks, I got a lot of feedback from various meetings on the proposed LLVM AI contribution policy, and I made some significant changes based on that feedback. The current draft proposal focuses on the idea of requiring a human in the loop who understands their contribution well enough to answer questions about it during review. The idea here is that contributors are not allowed to offload the work of validating LLM tool output to maintainers. I’ve mostly removed the Fedora policy in an effort to move from the vague notion of “owning the contribution” to a more explicit “contributors have to review their contributions and be prepared to answer questions about them”. Contributors should never find themselves in the position of saying “I don’t know, an LLM did it”. I felt the change here was significant, and deserved a new thread.
From an informal show of hands at the round table at the US LLVM developer meeting, most contributors (or at least the subset with the resources and interest in attending this round table in person) are interested in using LLM assistance to increase their productivity, and I really do want to enable them to do so, while also making sure we give maintainers a useful policy tool for pushing back against unwanted contributions.
I’ve updated the PR, and I’ve pasted the markdown below as well, but you can also view it on GitHub.
Policy
LLVM’s policy is that contributors can use whatever tools they would like to
craft their contributions, but there must be a human in the loop.
Contributors must read and review all LLM-generated code or text before they
ask other project members to review it. The contributor is always the author
and is fully accountable for their contributions. Contributors should be
sufficiently confident that the contribution is high enough quality that asking
for a review is a good use of scarce maintainer time, and they should be able
to answer questions about their work during review.
We expect that new contributors will be less confident in their contributions,
and our guidance to them is to start with small contributions that they can
fully understand to build confidence. We aspire to be a welcoming community
that helps new contributors grow their expertise, but learning involves taking
small steps, getting feedback, and iterating. Passing maintainer feedback to an
LLM doesn’t help anyone grow, and does not sustain our community.
Contributors are expected to be transparent and label contributions that
contain substantial amounts of tool-generated content. Our policy on
labelling is intended to facilitate reviews, and not to track which parts of
LLVM are generated. Contributors should note tool usage in their pull request
description, commit message, or wherever authorship is normally indicated for
the work. For instance, use a commit message trailer like Assisted-by: . This transparency helps the community develop best practices
and understand the role of these new tools.
An important implication of this policy is that it bans agents that take action
in our digital spaces without human approval, such as the GitHub @claude
agent. Similarly, automated review tools that
publish comments without human review are not allowed. However, an opt-in
review tool that keeps a human in the loop is acceptable under this policy.
As another example, using an LLM to generate documentation, which a contributor manually reviews for correctness, edits, and then posts as a PR, is an approveduse of tools under this policy.
This policy includes, but is not limited to, the following kinds of
contributions:
- Code, usually in the form of a pull request
- RFCs or design proposals
- Issues or security vulnerabilities
- Comments and feedback on pull requests
Extractive Contributions
The reason for our “human-in-the-loop” contribution policy is that processing patches, PRs, RFCs, and comments to LLVM is not free – it takes a lot of maintainer time and energy to review those contributions! Sending the
unreviewed output of an LLM to open source project maintainers extracts work
from them in the form of design and code review, so we call this kind ofcontribution an “extractive contribution”.
Our golden rule is that a contribution should be worth more to the project than the time it takes to review it. These ideas are captured by this quote
from the book Working in Public by Nadia Eghbal:
"When attention is being appropriated, producers need to weigh the costs and benefits of the transaction. To assess whether the appropriation of attention
is net-positive, it’s useful to distinguish between extractive and
non-extractive contributions. Extractive contributions are those where the marginal cost of reviewing and merging that contribution is greater than the marginal benefit to the project’s producers. In the case of a code contribution, it might be a pull request that’s too complex or unwieldy toreview, given the potential upside." -- Nadia Eghbal
Prior to the advent of LLMs, open source project maintainers would often review any and all changes sent to the project simply because posting a change for review was a sign of interest from a potential long-term contributor. While new tools enable more development, it shifts effort from the implementor to the reviewer, and our policy exists to ensure that we value and do not squander
maintainer time.
Reviewing changes from new contributors is part of growing the next generation of contributors and sustaining the project. We want the LLVM project to be welcoming and open to aspiring compiler engineers who are willing to invest time and effort to learn and grow, because growing our contributor base and recruiting new maintainers helps sustain the project over the long term. Being
open to contributions and liberally granting commit access
is a big part of how LLVM has grown and successfully been adopted all across the industry. We therefore automatically post a greeting comment to pull requests from new contributors and encourage maintainers to spend their time tohelp new contributors learn.
Handling Violations
If a maintainer judges that a contribution is extractive (i.e. it doesn’t comply with this policy), they should copy-paste the following response to
request changes, add the extractive label if applicable, and refrain from
further engagement:
This PR appears to be extractive, and requires additional justification for
why it is valuable enough to the project for us to review it. Please see
our developer policy on AI-generated contributions:
http://llvm.org/docs/AIToolPolicy.html
Other reviewers should use the label to prioritize their review time.
The best ways to make a change less extractive and more valuable are to reduce its size or complexity or to increase its usefulness to the community. These factors are impossible to weigh objectively, and our project policy leaves this determination up to the maintainers of the project, i.e. those who are doing
the work of sustaining the project.
If a contributor responds but doesn’t make their change meaningfully less extractive, maintainers should escalate to the relevant moderation or admin
team for the space (GitHub, Discourse, Discord, etc) to lock the conversation.
Copyright
Artificial intelligence systems raise many questions around copyright that have yet to be answered. Our policy on AI tools is similar to our copyright policy: Contributors are responsible for ensuring that they have the right to contribute code under the terms of our license, typically meaning that either they, their employer, or their collaborators hold the copyright. Using AI tools to regenerate copyrighted material does not remove the copyright, and contributors are responsible for ensuring that such material does not appear in their contributions. Contributions found to violate this policy will be removed
just like any other offending contribution.
Examples
Here are some examples of contributions that demonstrate how to apply
the principles of this policy:
- This PR contains a proof from Alive2, which is a strong signal of
value and correctness. - This generated documentation was reviewed for correctness by a
human before being posted.
References
Our policy was informed by experiences in other communities:
