> But even if that is the case, this is one of the largest and most complex pieces of software on the planet, and is used to produce the binaries of countless

> But even if that is the case, this is one of the largest and most complex pieces of software on the planet, and is used to produce the binaries of countless other pieces of software. I think this policy makes sense because of that. We want to make sure no inadvertent behavior is introduced That would be an excellent reason to limit AI contributions if true. I am not in a position to judge the requirements of a compiler project so I do not have an opinion on whether that is a sound reason or not. However, the reasons being given for the change (and the wording around "legally significant") seem to be about copyright law which I do not think is sound reasoning (see my other comments on this). > ~puts conspiracy theory hat on~ some kind of backdoor undetectable by humans inserted into every compiled binary allowing the authoring AI system (or the government behind it) remote access to every machine it runs on). Okay maybe that’s a little crazy Someone using AI code to introduce a back door will surely be willing to lie and say its human written so this policy will not help.