Re: Nominations for Anthropic’s Claude for Open Source program

[Sam James via Gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2099 bytes --]

Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> writes:

> Developers,
>
> Anthropic is generously offering 6 months of Claude Max 20x to Free and Open
> Source Software projects to support the FOSS ecosystem. These tools can be
> incredibly helpful with reviewing upstream code, evaluating the conformance of
> a particular interface to a standard, or just for your own learning and
> exploring the implementation of the project or subsystem.

Several developers often don't even refer to Coverity, but say "a static
analyzer service" or similar. I think maybe some discussion should be
had before naming a service (and giving some publicity) given this
precedent, though it's a bit late now.

>
> If you are an established, active contributor to the GNU Toolchain and are
> interested in having access to Claude Max 20x under Anthropic’s Claude for Open
> Source program, please respond to this email thread with a short description of
> how you would utilize the access and the potential impact on the GNU Toolchain.
> The program's slots are limited and David Edelsohn and I plan to review the
> proposals. Please keep in mind that these are individual grants from Anthropic
> to you personally. If you are approved you’ll get an email from Anthropic with
> further instructions.
>
> While the current GNU Project policy is not to accept LLM-generated content in
> the projects, that still leaves other uses like bug triage, patch review, and
> research as ways to use these tools.

.. but also, I think we probably need to have a policy discussion about
this. I hope we won't have anyone pasting LLM replies onto bugs or patch
review, or an automated process doing that. I would *not* want to see
something like Sashiko for example. It would seriously put me off
contributing to glibc and I don't think it is respectful of
contributors' time who have come to us with a bug report or patch.

We should discuss this I think before handing out access.

Now, if a maintainer wants to use it to aid their review (with great
care), that may be more acceptable.

sam

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 418 bytes --]