.. _ai_policy:

###########################################
 AI Policy for Developers and Contributors
###########################################

This is our AI Policy **for** *human contributors* about **using**
AI assistance with details on:

-  Legal/IP requirements
-  Disclosure obligations
-  Authorship warranties

For instructions **to** *AI assistants* (e.g.
`Anthropic Claude <https://www.anthropic.com/claude>`_,
`Google Gemini <https://gemini.google.com/app>`_,
`OpenAI ChatGPT <https://openai.com/chatgpt/overview/>`_,
`Microsoft Copilot <https://copilot.microsoft.com/>`_ or other)
about **providing** AI assistance, please see
:download:`CLAUDE.md </_static/CLAUDE.md>`.

.. important::

   **The Bottom Line - Make the right thing the easy thing.**

   Your pull request is your byline. When you submit code, you are
   signing your name to it and warranting that you are the **Author**.

   Whether you used an AI as an **Editor** or a **Ghostwriter**, the
   final work must be a product of **Your** skill, judgment, and creative
   labor.

   An AI can never be credited as an author or co-author.

----

*******************************************************
 A Helpful Analogy: The AI as an Editor or Ghostwriter
*******************************************************

To understand the role you, the human contributor, must play when using
AI tools, it's helpful to draw an analogy from the world of writing and
publishing. For any code you submit to be legally sound and protect the
integrity of this project, your use of AI **must** mirror the
relationship between an author and their editor or ghostwriter.

Scenario 1: The AI as an Editor
===============================

In publishing, an author writes the original manuscript—the story, the
characters, the plot. They then give it to an editor. The editor doesn't
write the story, but they refine it. They correct grammar, improve
sentence structure, point out inconsistencies, and suggest better ways
to phrase things. The final work is stronger, but the **Author** is,
without question, the person who wrote the original manuscript.

This is a perfect model for acceptable AI use:

-  **You** write the original, substantive code: the architecture, the
   core logic, the solution to the problem.

-  The **AI** acts as your editor: it helps you refactor for clarity,
   finds potential bugs (typos), suggests more efficient syntax, or
   helps write comments and documentation for *your* code.

In this role, the AI is a powerful tool that polishes your original
work. You remain the sole, undisputed Author.

Scenario 2: The AI as a Ghostwriter
===================================

A ghostwriter is hired to write a book *for* another person, based on
detailed outlines and extensive interviews. The public figure who hired
them takes the byline and is considered the author. They are also fully
responsible for the book's content, accuracy, and any legal issues that
may arise. They don't just blindly publish the ghostwriter's draft; they
must review, revise, and ultimately approve every word, making it their
own.

This is also an acceptable, but more demanding, model for AI use:

-  **You** act as the commissioner: you provide a detailed, specific
   prompt to the AI, outlining exactly what you need a block of code to
   do.

-  The **AI** generates a "first draft" of that code block.

-  **Your critical responsibility** is to act as the final author: you
   must meticulously review, test, debug, and often significantly modify
   that code. You must understand it completely and integrate it into
   the larger project. By doing so, you take full accountability for it.

In this role, you are using the AI to generate raw material, but it is
your intellectual labor — your review, validation, and integration —
that transforms it into a valid contribution.

**************************************************
The Role an AI Can Never Fill: Author or Co-Author
**************************************************

The hard line is this: an AI can never be credited as an **Author** or
**Co-Author**.
It has no legal standing, cannot be held accountable, and cannot hold
copyright. Any contribution where the AI was the primary creator and the
human was merely a prompter without significant review or modification
is not copyrightable and cannot be accepted.

Accepting such a contribution would have severe consequences for the
project. The code could be considered public domain (and thus
un-licensable) or, worse, a derivative work of the AI's training data
carrying unknown, potentially mixed, viral or even contradictory license
obligations.

In either case, our codebase would cease to be a clean, single-license
work and would become a legally ambiguous patchwork.
