Add guidelines for using AI tools

General-Application-Information.md

@@ -9,7 +9,9 @@ programs can get information about what the Git project would like to
 see in an application.
 
 *Please read this page completely before focusing on a project or a
- microproject ideas, or microproject general information.*
+ microproject ideas, or microproject general information.
+ Specifically, also read the "AI guidelines" section to know our
+ stance regarding the usage of AI tools.*
 
 
 ## Microproject (required)
@@ -130,6 +132,110 @@ are interested in, it is a good idea to:
 used for searching the mailing list and linking to previous
 discussions.)
 
+## AI guidelines
+
+The use of Artificial Intelligence related tools ("AI" or "AIs" for
+short), like Large Language Models ("LLMs"), by developers is becoming
+more and more popular, but that's not a reason to blindly use them,
+especially when working on the Git project.
+
+### Legal issues
+
+In general, it's not clear if AI generated code or documentation are
+acceptable in the Git project. Authors contributing to Git are
+required to "sign off" the patches they contribute, and to agree with
+the Developer’s Certificate of Origin, also called DCO, (see
+<https://git-scm.com/docs/SubmittingPatches#sign-off>), while the DCO
+says basically that authors of a patch should be sure about the origin
+of its content.
+
+As we cannot usually be sure how AIs have been trained and that they
+are not just repeating proprietary existing code or documentation they
+saw during their training, we cannot accept much AI generated code or
+documentation in general. Now, if it's only a few lines to fix a bug
+or to implement a common pattern or summarize something, and if that
+looks specific enough to a current concrete problem a developer is
+working on, that might be OK.
+
+Anyway as the situation is not clear for the Git project and probably
+many other open source projects, you should be very prudent regarding
+this.
+
+### Be very careful with AI output
+
+For a number of reasons, not just legal ones, developers should really
+make sure that they treat what AIs produce very carefully. They
+should:
+
+  - triple check everything, especially regarding our guidelines
+    (indent, style, commit message guidelines, etc, see especially the
+    SubmittingPatches and CodingGuidelines docs as well as the other
+    pages on this website) and the feedback reviewers already gave
+    them or others,
+
+  - build and test changes, using existing, new or manual tests, to
+    check that the changes are correct, perform well and don't produce
+    garbage output,
+
+  - doubt anything they don't fully understand, or anything that might
+    not match our guidelines or feedback, and
+
+  - fix, simplify, adapt, reword or change anything that is
+    suspicious, bloated, too formal, or that they don't understand, or
+    that doesn't match our guidelines or our feedback.
+
+Yeah, AIs still often hallucinate or just produce bad code, commit
+messages, documentation or output, even when you point out their
+mistakes.
+
+### We don't accept AI output as-is
+
+It's unacceptable to send us something that is obvious AI slop, or
+that sounds overly formal or bloated, or that looks good on the
+surface but makes no sense, or that senders don’t understand or cannot
+explain. It just wastes our time and we cannot accept it. We want to
+interact with and mentor humans, not AIs.
+
+For example, it's unacceptable to have an AI generate a commit message
+where it just describes what the code in the commit does, instead of
+the purpose of the change, and then send that to us.
+
+In general, it's unacceptable to send AI-generated patches or messages
+as-is to the mailing list or to mentors' or developers' personal email
+addresses. We won't consider candidates doing that.
+
+For another, unfortunately common, example, it's unacceptable to send
+us an application that has obviously been AI generated and doesn't
+follow our guidelines or the feedback we previously gave to other
+applicants. Those applications will be dropped.
+
+### Blindly using AI is far worse than not applying
+
+As bad AI use is growing in general, not just to apply to mentoring
+programs, more and more tools and ways are being developed to find out
+and fight against bad AI use.
+
+So people who apply by sending us AI generated output as-is, not only
+waste their time, and our time, for no result, but they also leave
+evidence on our mailing list archive of their bad behavior.
+
+For example, employers already use social media screening tools or
+candidate assessment software when hiring people, and it's likely that
+those tools, which often already use AI, are, or will be able to find
+out soon about such bad behavior.
+
+### Better ways to use AIs
+
+Developers would often likely get better results, learn more and have
+a better overall experience by asking AIs to only explain things, and
+guide them step by step towards producing a solution by themselves,
+rather than by asking for a full solution that they would then mostly
+copy-paste.
+
+They can also use AIs to help with debugging, or with checking for
+obvious mistakes, things that can be improved, things that don't match
+our style, guidelines or our feedback, before sending it to us.
+
 ## Note about the number of slots
 
 The Git organization usually has very limited mentoring capacity.

General-Microproject-Information.md

@@ -211,6 +211,15 @@ questions on the mailing list or in IRC, or writing new tests, etc.,
 etc. In short, start doing things that other Git developers do!
 Alternatively you can of course focus on your project proposal.
 
+## Be very careful when using AI tools
+
+There is an "AI guidelines" section on our
+General-Application-Information page:
+
+https://git.github.io/General-Application-Information/
+
+Please read it and make sure you use AI very carefully.
+
 ## How to find ideas for microprojects
 
 First check the specific page(s) or information about Git