Contributors

by Stuart J Mackintosh - 05:31 - 28 Sep 2025

Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions

Hello,

I think IA policies and risks/benefits may vary a lot depending on the use cases...

The thread was initially started about migrations. This is really a use case where IA can bring a lot of benefits with very limited risks. Indeed, recent migrations are very easy for most modules. We could have a huge benefit if we could get 1000+ modules easily migrated (with possible AI automated ports), using standard OCA tools and letting the AI adjust the tests and pre-commit considering the framework and upstream modules changes in the context window. As Graeme explained, these simple migrations usually involves no creative work nor copyright issues.

As for generating larger pieces of new modules/vibe coding, well of course there would be more things to care about, like copyrights, quality control etc...

Some projects like Qemu recently banned IA completely because they fear large pieces of contributed IA code may infringe copyrights (the LLM would kind of replicated copyrighted code without enforcing licenses) and taint the whole project. This is definitely something we should pay attention to.

For instance if the AI is trained on Odoo Enterprise code (or just even just in the context window) and new similar code is generated it could taint the OCA code. On the contrary it is also entirely possible AI could very soon replicate many EE module or ERP feature just from the UI/specs without infringing any copyright (Odoo tends to copy other apps from their UI, AI could soon do it too...)

But more importantly, there is no need for AGI nor phD level AI for AI (probably an OpenAI/Anthropic bubble) to change completely the software industry. The current level of LLMs with lowering costs is far enough to raise many concerns how code is made and more importantly how open source communities like us are organized.

As Daniel explained, AI may of course multiply toxic or spam behavior and we should hold AI users responsible for it.

But I think it is also very important to consider this: as many open source communities, the whole OCA was organized as a meritocracy where ability to create proper code and ERP knowledge was earned after many years of seniority and acknowledged as such. Despite ocasional disputes, modules authors, repo PSCs and all our OCA decision process is kind if naturally structured atop of this "traditional" coding and ERP expertise. merged code was kind of our "proof of work" in our pre-IA world.

But AI will soon bring us to a world were an LLM will be more knowledgeable than senior ERP consultants and only top coders will be able to add any value over AI generated code. Good coders with access to compute will also be able to generate or maintain orders of magnitude more code. Bad coders with bad intentions will also be able to flood the OCA with poor quality contributions and the average person will not be able/not have time to filter the good options. In this is world that is coming in just a few months, how will we be able to maintain trust and organization? IMHO this should be a top concern for the OCA.

Finally, for more than a decade, the business model behind the OCA was kind of: in traditional ERPs 70% of the cost is from consulting/customization and 30% from licenses. So some alien skilled people able to do both the code and the consulting (or small companies able to do both) would charge the 70% and use that revenue produce the ERP code free of license charges. That was working because non specialists would typically not be able simply download open source code and do their ERP project alone. So companies would somehwat hire module authors, pay the 70% consulting/customization cost and with limited parasistism, the ecosystem could somehow sustain itself.

But soon the expertise to use OCA modules will drop a lot. The AI will bring it to the user directly bypassing modules authors and contributors entirely...

How will our open source economy work in this context? Well an option I see is use AI on our side: manage order of magnitude more code and more customers for a fraction of the cost... Now, I'm almost certain if we simply reject the IA entirety, then yes, it won't take long before we are made completely obsolete.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2025, 4:47 AM Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:

Indeed - it would be of benefit for OCA to have a position.

Best wishes,

Stuart.

On 27/09/2025 09:27, Frederik Kramer wrote:
Hi Stuart, hi all,

very valuable for decision making but I think within our community we have people thinking as strict as Gentoo, NetBSD on the matter and others that would rather adopt the stance of the Linux or Apache Foundation. So possibly the board / governance/community health WGs shall come up with a decision proposal along these lines and ask for a solid quorum in the next AGA.

Best Frederik
Am 26. September 2025 08:42:39 MESZ schrieb Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org>:
Following up and to take a look at how others have dealt with these matters, I noticed Fedora released an AI policy yesterday so I have briefly summarised (perplexity) this compared with a bunch of other policies, full analysis here: https://codimd.mackintosh.me/s/ifsByh-G8#

Brief overview of policies:

- The main goal is to blend innovation with strong safeguards—using AI tools to help, but keeping people fully responsible for results.
- Most projects see transparency as crucial for maintaining trust and enabling fair review and collaboration.
- Quality control and copyright protection are prioritized: automation should not dilute standards nor introduce legal risk.
- Some policies are stricter, fully banning AI output unless human-vetted and legally certified.
- Clause implementation mostly revolves around commit messages, contributor guidelines, and reviewed workflow steps—simple, actionable, easy to follow.

This format ensures contributors know where, when, and how AI use is welcomed—and where human effort and discretion are absolutely required.

Best wishes,

Stuart.

On 24/09/2025 11:01, Stuart J Mackintosh wrote:
I propose that you address these points through the mechanism proposed by Daniel - responsible use, and behavioural guidance alongside a code of conduct which can determine obligations such as disclosure of AI use; Ai is just one of a set of issues that must be addressed.

Best wishes,

Stuart.

On 24/09/2025 10:47, Graeme Gellatly wrote:
I disagree. If you are holding yourself out as a professional you should declare AI usage and the scope. Declaring AI usage is mandated for my profession, if I prepare any advice or report in a professional capacity I must declare. It is just not an option to say, oh well it is just a tool, when it really isn't, it directly created output.

It also gives valuable information to both the reviewer and ultimately the users.

It is also important from a copyright perspective. There is no copyright in a lot of AI generated work without later creative human input and even then only the human inputs are usually covered. To be fair there is also no copyright in a lot of human generated output (i.e. bug fixes and migrations) as there is no creative output, so for that kind of work AI is actually ideal. Ref https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf
On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 8:27 PM Daniel Reis <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
Hello all,

It begs the question of what is "AI generated code".
AI can assist code writing from code completion suggestions, to full design and code writing.
Or just assist with code reviews or issue resolution, without writing code.

In the end AI is just a tool.
Irresponsible use can happen with AI or any other automation tool.

What really matters is the behavior of people using these tools.
I feel that we might need a guideline regarding responsible use of automated tools, including AI, rather than specifically for AI use.
This could be fitted into a code of conduct for the community.

Thanks
Daniel

On 18/09/2025 08:41, Stefan Rijnhart wrote:
Dear all,

at least one contributor is planning again to flood the OCA projects 
with PRs for module migrations: https://github.com/OCA/web/issues/3285. 
This volume is likely made possible through automation, with an LLM 
generating the actual migration code (on top of, hopefully, a more 
deterministic tool like OCA's odoo-module-migrator).

Regardless of the volume and the submitter, if the submitter has 
reviewed, refined and tested the code generated by an LLM, this should 
not be a problem but as a reviewer I'd like to know what I can expect. 
Holger Brunn pointed out to me that in other projects, this may be 
covered by a demand in the guidelines to disclose LLM usage and its 
extend. For an example, see 
https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/pull/8289/files.

I would very much like to see such an addition to the OCA guidelines. 
Additionally, I would like to suggest that the basic premise (the 
generated code is indeed first self-reviewed, refined and tested) is 
also made explicit, and that it is unacceptable to pass on reviewer 
comments to the LLM only to copy back the LLM's response (which has 
happened to me on one or two occassions).

Can I have a temperature check for your support for such an addition to 
the guidelines? Or do you have other ideas or perspectives on the matter?

Cheers,
Stefan




-- 
Opener B.V. - Business solutions driven by open source collaboration

Stefan Rijnhart - Consultant/developer

mail:stefan@opener.amsterdam
tel: +31 (0) 6 1447 8606
web:https://opener.amsterdam
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

DANIEL REIS
MANAGING PARTNER
>> Schedule time on my calendar.
M: +351 919 991 307
E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

Stuart J Mackintosh

Business & digital technology consultant

Open Digital Consulting Co

UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

Email: sjm@opendigital.cc

Web: https://opendigital.cc

IM: xmpp:sjm@opendigital.cc
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer
Geschäftsführer

initOS GmbH
Innungsstraße 7
21244 Buchholz i.d.N.

Phone: +49 4181 13503-12
Fax:    +49 4181 13503-10
Mobil: +49 179 3901819

Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com
Web:   www.initos.com

Geschäftsführung:
Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N.
Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226
Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
USt-IdNr.: DE815580155

_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

Stuart J Mackintosh

Business & digital technology consultant

Open Digital Consulting Co

UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

Email: sjm@opendigital.cc

Web: https://opendigital.cc

IM: xmpp:sjm@opendigital.cc
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

by Raphaël Akretion - 03:06 - 27 Sep 2025

Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions

Indeed - it would be of benefit for OCA to have a position.

Best wishes,

Stuart.

On 27/09/2025 09:27, Frederik Kramer wrote:

Hi Stuart, hi all,

very valuable for decision making but I think within our community we have people thinking as strict as Gentoo, NetBSD on the matter and others that would rather adopt the stance of the Linux or Apache Foundation. So possibly the board / governance/community health WGs shall come up with a decision proposal along these lines and ask for a solid quorum in the next AGA.

Best Frederik
Am 26. September 2025 08:42:39 MESZ schrieb Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org>:
Following up and to take a look at how others have dealt with these matters, I noticed Fedora released an AI policy yesterday so I have briefly summarised (perplexity) this compared with a bunch of other policies, full analysis here: https://codimd.mackintosh.me/s/ifsByh-G8#

Brief overview of policies:

- The main goal is to blend innovation with strong safeguards—using AI tools to help, but keeping people fully responsible for results.
- Most projects see transparency as crucial for maintaining trust and enabling fair review and collaboration.
- Quality control and copyright protection are prioritized: automation should not dilute standards nor introduce legal risk.
- Some policies are stricter, fully banning AI output unless human-vetted and legally certified.
- Clause implementation mostly revolves around commit messages, contributor guidelines, and reviewed workflow steps—simple, actionable, easy to follow.

This format ensures contributors know where, when, and how AI use is welcomed—and where human effort and discretion are absolutely required.

Best wishes,

Stuart.

On 24/09/2025 11:01, Stuart J Mackintosh wrote:
I propose that you address these points through the mechanism proposed by Daniel - responsible use, and behavioural guidance alongside a code of conduct which can determine obligations such as disclosure of AI use; Ai is just one of a set of issues that must be addressed.

Best wishes,

Stuart.

On 24/09/2025 10:47, Graeme Gellatly wrote:
I disagree. If you are holding yourself out as a professional you should declare AI usage and the scope. Declaring AI usage is mandated for my profession, if I prepare any advice or report in a professional capacity I must declare. It is just not an option to say, oh well it is just a tool, when it really isn't, it directly created output.

It also gives valuable information to both the reviewer and ultimately the users.

It is also important from a copyright perspective. There is no copyright in a lot of AI generated work without later creative human input and even then only the human inputs are usually covered. To be fair there is also no copyright in a lot of human generated output (i.e. bug fixes and migrations) as there is no creative output, so for that kind of work AI is actually ideal. Ref https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf
On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 8:27 PM Daniel Reis <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
Hello all,

It begs the question of what is "AI generated code".
AI can assist code writing from code completion suggestions, to full design and code writing.
Or just assist with code reviews or issue resolution, without writing code.

In the end AI is just a tool.
Irresponsible use can happen with AI or any other automation tool.

What really matters is the behavior of people using these tools.
I feel that we might need a guideline regarding responsible use of automated tools, including AI, rather than specifically for AI use.
This could be fitted into a code of conduct for the community.

Thanks
Daniel

On 18/09/2025 08:41, Stefan Rijnhart wrote:
Dear all,

at least one contributor is planning again to flood the OCA projects 
with PRs for module migrations: https://github.com/OCA/web/issues/3285. 
This volume is likely made possible through automation, with an LLM 
generating the actual migration code (on top of, hopefully, a more 
deterministic tool like OCA's odoo-module-migrator).

Regardless of the volume and the submitter, if the submitter has 
reviewed, refined and tested the code generated by an LLM, this should 
not be a problem but as a reviewer I'd like to know what I can expect. 
Holger Brunn pointed out to me that in other projects, this may be 
covered by a demand in the guidelines to disclose LLM usage and its 
extend. For an example, see 
https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/pull/8289/files.

I would very much like to see such an addition to the OCA guidelines. 
Additionally, I would like to suggest that the basic premise (the 
generated code is indeed first self-reviewed, refined and tested) is 
also made explicit, and that it is unacceptable to pass on reviewer 
comments to the LLM only to copy back the LLM's response (which has 
happened to me on one or two occassions).

Can I have a temperature check for your support for such an addition to 
the guidelines? Or do you have other ideas or perspectives on the matter?

Cheers,
Stefan



-- 
Opener B.V. - Business solutions driven by open source collaboration

Stefan Rijnhart - Consultant/developer

mail:stefan@opener.amsterdam
tel: +31 (0) 6 1447 8606
web:https://opener.amsterdam
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

DANIEL REIS
MANAGING PARTNER
>> Schedule time on my calendar.
M: +351 919 991 307
E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

Stuart J Mackintosh

Business & digital technology consultant

Open Digital Consulting Co

UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

Email: sjm@opendigital.cc

Web: https://opendigital.cc

IM: xmpp:sjm@opendigital.cc
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer
Geschäftsführer

initOS GmbH
Innungsstraße 7
21244 Buchholz i.d.N.

Phone: +49 4181 13503-12
Fax:    +49 4181 13503-10
Mobil: +49 179 3901819

Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com
Web:   www.initos.com

Geschäftsführung:
Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N.
Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226
Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
USt-IdNr.: DE815580155

_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

--

Stuart J Mackintosh

Business & digital technology consultant

Open Digital Consulting Co

Open Digital Consulting Co Logo

UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

by Stuart J Mackintosh - 09:45 - 27 Sep 2025

Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions

Hi Stuart, hi all,

very valuable for decision making but I think within our community we have people thinking as strict as Gentoo, NetBSD on the matter and others that would rather adopt the stance of the Linux or Apache Foundation. So possibly the board / governance/community health WGs shall come up with a decision proposal along these lines and ask for a solid quorum in the next AGA.

Best Frederik

Am 26. September 2025 08:42:39 MESZ schrieb Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org>:

Following up and to take a look at how others have dealt with these matters, I noticed Fedora released an AI policy yesterday so I have briefly summarised (perplexity) this compared with a bunch of other policies, full analysis here: https://codimd.mackintosh.me/s/ifsByh-G8#

Brief overview of policies:

- The main goal is to blend innovation with strong safeguards—using AI tools to help, but keeping people fully responsible for results.
- Most projects see transparency as crucial for maintaining trust and enabling fair review and collaboration.
- Quality control and copyright protection are prioritized: automation should not dilute standards nor introduce legal risk.
- Some policies are stricter, fully banning AI output unless human-vetted and legally certified.
- Clause implementation mostly revolves around commit messages, contributor guidelines, and reviewed workflow steps—simple, actionable, easy to follow.

This format ensures contributors know where, when, and how AI use is welcomed—and where human effort and discretion are absolutely required.

Best wishes,

Stuart.

On 24/09/2025 11:01, Stuart J Mackintosh wrote:
I propose that you address these points through the mechanism proposed by Daniel - responsible use, and behavioural guidance alongside a code of conduct which can determine obligations such as disclosure of AI use; Ai is just one of a set of issues that must be addressed.

Best wishes,

Stuart.

On 24/09/2025 10:47, Graeme Gellatly wrote:
I disagree. If you are holding yourself out as a professional you should declare AI usage and the scope. Declaring AI usage is mandated for my profession, if I prepare any advice or report in a professional capacity I must declare. It is just not an option to say, oh well it is just a tool, when it really isn't, it directly created output.

It also gives valuable information to both the reviewer and ultimately the users.

It is also important from a copyright perspective. There is no copyright in a lot of AI generated work without later creative human input and even then only the human inputs are usually covered. To be fair there is also no copyright in a lot of human generated output (i.e. bug fixes and migrations) as there is no creative output, so for that kind of work AI is actually ideal. Ref https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf
On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 8:27 PM Daniel Reis <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
Hello all,

It begs the question of what is "AI generated code".
AI can assist code writing from code completion suggestions, to full design and code writing.
Or just assist with code reviews or issue resolution, without writing code.

In the end AI is just a tool.
Irresponsible use can happen with AI or any other automation tool.

What really matters is the behavior of people using these tools.
I feel that we might need a guideline regarding responsible use of automated tools, including AI, rather than specifically for AI use.
This could be fitted into a code of conduct for the community.

Thanks
Daniel

On 18/09/2025 08:41, Stefan Rijnhart wrote:
Dear all,

at least one contributor is planning again to flood the OCA projects 
with PRs for module migrations: https://github.com/OCA/web/issues/3285. 
This volume is likely made possible through automation, with an LLM 
generating the actual migration code (on top of, hopefully, a more 
deterministic tool like OCA's odoo-module-migrator).

Regardless of the volume and the submitter, if the submitter has 
reviewed, refined and tested the code generated by an LLM, this should 
not be a problem but as a reviewer I'd like to know what I can expect. 
Holger Brunn pointed out to me that in other projects, this may be 
covered by a demand in the guidelines to disclose LLM usage and its 
extend. For an example, see 
https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/pull/8289/files.

I would very much like to see such an addition to the OCA guidelines. 
Additionally, I would like to suggest that the basic premise (the 
generated code is indeed first self-reviewed, refined and tested) is 
also made explicit, and that it is unacceptable to pass on reviewer 
comments to the LLM only to copy back the LLM's response (which has 
happened to me on one or two occassions).

Can I have a temperature check for your support for such an addition to 
the guidelines? Or do you have other ideas or perspectives on the matter?

Cheers,
Stefan



-- 
Opener B.V. - Business solutions driven by open source collaboration

Stefan Rijnhart - Consultant/developer

mail:stefan@opener.amsterdam
tel: +31 (0) 6 1447 8606
web:https://opener.amsterdam
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

DANIEL REIS
MANAGING PARTNER
>> Schedule time on my calendar.
M: +351 919 991 307
E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

Stuart J Mackintosh

Business & digital technology consultant

Open Digital Consulting Co

UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

Email: sjm@opendigital.cc

Web: https://opendigital.cc

IM: xmpp:sjm@opendigital.cc
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

--
Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer
Geschäftsführer

initOS GmbH
Innungsstraße 7
21244 Buchholz i.d.N.

Phone: +49 4181 13503-12
Fax:    +49 4181 13503-10
Mobil: +49 179 3901819

Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com
Web:   www.initos.com

Geschäftsführung:
Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N.
Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226
Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
USt-IdNr.: DE815580155

by Frederik Kramer - 09:25 - 27 Sep 2025

Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions

Following up and to take a look at how others have dealt with these matters, I noticed Fedora released an AI policy yesterday so I have briefly summarised (perplexity) this compared with a bunch of other policies, full analysis here: https://codimd.mackintosh.me/s/ifsByh-G8#

Brief overview of policies:

- The main goal is to blend innovation with strong safeguards—using AI tools to help, but keeping people fully responsible for results.
- Most projects see transparency as crucial for maintaining trust and enabling fair review and collaboration.
- Quality control and copyright protection are prioritized: automation should not dilute standards nor introduce legal risk.
- Some policies are stricter, fully banning AI output unless human-vetted and legally certified.
- Clause implementation mostly revolves around commit messages, contributor guidelines, and reviewed workflow steps—simple, actionable, easy to follow.

This format ensures contributors know where, when, and how AI use is welcomed—and where human effort and discretion are absolutely required.

Best wishes,

Stuart.

On 24/09/2025 11:01, Stuart J Mackintosh wrote:

I propose that you address these points through the mechanism proposed by Daniel - responsible use, and behavioural guidance alongside a code of conduct which can determine obligations such as disclosure of AI use; Ai is just one of a set of issues that must be addressed.

Best wishes,

Stuart.

On 24/09/2025 10:47, Graeme Gellatly wrote:
I disagree. If you are holding yourself out as a professional you should declare AI usage and the scope. Declaring AI usage is mandated for my profession, if I prepare any advice or report in a professional capacity I must declare. It is just not an option to say, oh well it is just a tool, when it really isn't, it directly created output.

It also gives valuable information to both the reviewer and ultimately the users.

It is also important from a copyright perspective. There is no copyright in a lot of AI generated work without later creative human input and even then only the human inputs are usually covered. To be fair there is also no copyright in a lot of human generated output (i.e. bug fixes and migrations) as there is no creative output, so for that kind of work AI is actually ideal. Ref https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf
On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 8:27 PM Daniel Reis <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
Hello all,

It begs the question of what is "AI generated code".
AI can assist code writing from code completion suggestions, to full design and code writing.
Or just assist with code reviews or issue resolution, without writing code.

In the end AI is just a tool.
Irresponsible use can happen with AI or any other automation tool.

What really matters is the behavior of people using these tools.
I feel that we might need a guideline regarding responsible use of automated tools, including AI, rather than specifically for AI use.
This could be fitted into a code of conduct for the community.

Thanks
Daniel

On 18/09/2025 08:41, Stefan Rijnhart wrote:
Dear all,

at least one contributor is planning again to flood the OCA projects 
with PRs for module migrations: https://github.com/OCA/web/issues/3285. 
This volume is likely made possible through automation, with an LLM 
generating the actual migration code (on top of, hopefully, a more 
deterministic tool like OCA's odoo-module-migrator).

Regardless of the volume and the submitter, if the submitter has 
reviewed, refined and tested the code generated by an LLM, this should 
not be a problem but as a reviewer I'd like to know what I can expect. 
Holger Brunn pointed out to me that in other projects, this may be 
covered by a demand in the guidelines to disclose LLM usage and its 
extend. For an example, see 
https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/pull/8289/files.

I would very much like to see such an addition to the OCA guidelines. 
Additionally, I would like to suggest that the basic premise (the 
generated code is indeed first self-reviewed, refined and tested) is 
also made explicit, and that it is unacceptable to pass on reviewer 
comments to the LLM only to copy back the LLM's response (which has 
happened to me on one or two occassions).

Can I have a temperature check for your support for such an addition to 
the guidelines? Or do you have other ideas or perspectives on the matter?

Cheers,
Stefan



-- 
Opener B.V. - Business solutions driven by open source collaboration

Stefan Rijnhart - Consultant/developer

mail:stefan@opener.amsterdam
tel: +31 (0) 6 1447 8606
web:https://opener.amsterdam
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

DANIEL REIS
MANAGING PARTNER
>> Schedule time on my calendar.
M: +351 919 991 307
E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

Stuart J Mackintosh

Business & digital technology consultant

Open Digital Consulting Co

UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

Email: sjm@opendigital.cc

Web: https://opendigital.cc

IM: xmpp:sjm@opendigital.cc

--

Stuart J Mackintosh

Business & digital technology consultant

Open Digital Consulting Co

Open Digital Consulting Co Logo

UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

by Stuart J Mackintosh - 08:41 - 26 Sep 2025

October OCA Events Schedule

📣 Don't miss our upcoming events for OCA members in October!

- October 1: Webinar - Manage your social media from Odoo with the new OCA modules V17
- October 7: Support Group Session - OCA Consultant
- October 13 to 24: Online Training - OWL
- October 22: Webinar - Why OCA modules are like Magic Beans
- October 28: Webinar - OCA from 2013 to now, the history!

Register here : https://odoo-community.org/event
**100% discount for OCA members**

by Julie LeBrun (OCA) - 05:39 - 25 Sep 2025

Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions

I propose that you address these points through the mechanism proposed by Daniel - responsible use, and behavioural guidance alongside a code of conduct which can determine obligations such as disclosure of AI use; Ai is just one of a set of issues that must be addressed.

Best wishes,

Stuart.

On 24/09/2025 10:47, Graeme Gellatly wrote:

I disagree. If you are holding yourself out as a professional you should declare AI usage and the scope. Declaring AI usage is mandated for my profession, if I prepare any advice or report in a professional capacity I must declare. It is just not an option to say, oh well it is just a tool, when it really isn't, it directly created output.

It also gives valuable information to both the reviewer and ultimately the users.

It is also important from a copyright perspective. There is no copyright in a lot of AI generated work without later creative human input and even then only the human inputs are usually covered. To be fair there is also no copyright in a lot of human generated output (i.e. bug fixes and migrations) as there is no creative output, so for that kind of work AI is actually ideal. Ref https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf
On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 8:27 PM Daniel Reis <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
Hello all,

It begs the question of what is "AI generated code".
AI can assist code writing from code completion suggestions, to full design and code writing.
Or just assist with code reviews or issue resolution, without writing code.

In the end AI is just a tool.
Irresponsible use can happen with AI or any other automation tool.

What really matters is the behavior of people using these tools.
I feel that we might need a guideline regarding responsible use of automated tools, including AI, rather than specifically for AI use.
This could be fitted into a code of conduct for the community.

Thanks
Daniel

On 18/09/2025 08:41, Stefan Rijnhart wrote:
Dear all,

at least one contributor is planning again to flood the OCA projects 
with PRs for module migrations: https://github.com/OCA/web/issues/3285. 
This volume is likely made possible through automation, with an LLM 
generating the actual migration code (on top of, hopefully, a more 
deterministic tool like OCA's odoo-module-migrator).

Regardless of the volume and the submitter, if the submitter has 
reviewed, refined and tested the code generated by an LLM, this should 
not be a problem but as a reviewer I'd like to know what I can expect. 
Holger Brunn pointed out to me that in other projects, this may be 
covered by a demand in the guidelines to disclose LLM usage and its 
extend. For an example, see 
https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/pull/8289/files.

I would very much like to see such an addition to the OCA guidelines. 
Additionally, I would like to suggest that the basic premise (the 
generated code is indeed first self-reviewed, refined and tested) is 
also made explicit, and that it is unacceptable to pass on reviewer 
comments to the LLM only to copy back the LLM's response (which has 
happened to me on one or two occassions).

Can I have a temperature check for your support for such an addition to 
the guidelines? Or do you have other ideas or perspectives on the matter?

Cheers,
Stefan



-- 
Opener B.V. - Business solutions driven by open source collaboration

Stefan Rijnhart - Consultant/developer

mail:stefan@opener.amsterdam
tel: +31 (0) 6 1447 8606
web:https://opener.amsterdam
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

DANIEL REIS
MANAGING PARTNER
>> Schedule time on my calendar.
M: +351 919 991 307
E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

--

Stuart J Mackintosh

Business & digital technology consultant

Open Digital Consulting Co

Open Digital Consulting Co Logo

UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

by Stuart J Mackintosh - 11:05 - 24 Sep 2025

https://thedailyadda.com/95-of-companies-see-zero-return-on-30-billion-generative-ai-spend-mit-report-finds/

Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions

FWIW - this is our standard disclaimer for regular works. Sometimes we need to into more detail on that rare occasion it actually gets it exactly right for copyrightable elements.

**Disclaimer**: This module was developed with assistance from AI tools, 
specifically Cursor (powered by Claude Sonnet 4) and GitHub Copilot. 
While the AI tools provided guidance and code suggestions, the final 
implementation and testing was conducted by human developers to ensure 
quality and compliance with Odoo development standards.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 8:45 PM Graeme Gellatly <graeme@moahub.nz> wrote:

I disagree. If you are holding yourself out as a professional you should declare AI usage and the scope. Declaring AI usage is mandated for my profession, if I prepare any advice or report in a professional capacity I must declare. It is just not an option to say, oh well it is just a tool, when it really isn't, it directly created output.

It also gives valuable information to both the reviewer and ultimately the users.

It is also important from a copyright perspective. There is no copyright in a lot of AI generated work without later creative human input and even then only the human inputs are usually covered. To be fair there is also no copyright in a lot of human generated output (i.e. bug fixes and migrations) as there is no creative output, so for that kind of work AI is actually ideal. Ref https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf
On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 8:27 PM Daniel Reis <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
Hello all,

It begs the question of what is "AI generated code".
AI can assist code writing from code completion suggestions, to full design and code writing.
Or just assist with code reviews or issue resolution, without writing code.

In the end AI is just a tool.
Irresponsible use can happen with AI or any other automation tool.

What really matters is the behavior of people using these tools.
I feel that we might need a guideline regarding responsible use of automated tools, including AI, rather than specifically for AI use.
This could be fitted into a code of conduct for the community.

Thanks
Daniel

On 18/09/2025 08:41, Stefan Rijnhart wrote:
Dear all,

at least one contributor is planning again to flood the OCA projects 
with PRs for module migrations: https://github.com/OCA/web/issues/3285. 
This volume is likely made possible through automation, with an LLM 
generating the actual migration code (on top of, hopefully, a more 
deterministic tool like OCA's odoo-module-migrator).

Regardless of the volume and the submitter, if the submitter has 
reviewed, refined and tested the code generated by an LLM, this should 
not be a problem but as a reviewer I'd like to know what I can expect. 
Holger Brunn pointed out to me that in other projects, this may be 
covered by a demand in the guidelines to disclose LLM usage and its 
extend. For an example, see 
https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/pull/8289/files.

I would very much like to see such an addition to the OCA guidelines. 
Additionally, I would like to suggest that the basic premise (the 
generated code is indeed first self-reviewed, refined and tested) is 
also made explicit, and that it is unacceptable to pass on reviewer 
comments to the LLM only to copy back the LLM's response (which has 
happened to me on one or two occassions).

Can I have a temperature check for your support for such an addition to 
the guidelines? Or do you have other ideas or perspectives on the matter?

Cheers,
Stefan



-- 
Opener B.V. - Business solutions driven by open source collaboration

Stefan Rijnhart - Consultant/developer

mail:stefan@opener.amsterdam
tel: +31 (0) 6 1447 8606
web:https://opener.amsterdam
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

DANIEL REIS
MANAGING PARTNER
>> Schedule time on my calendar.
M: +351 919 991 307
E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

by Graeme Gellatly - 10:56 - 24 Sep 2025

Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions

I disagree. If you are holding yourself out as a professional you should declare AI usage and the scope. Declaring AI usage is mandated for my profession, if I prepare any advice or report in a professional capacity I must declare. It is just not an option to say, oh well it is just a tool, when it really isn't, it directly created output.

It also gives valuable information to both the reviewer and ultimately the users.

It is also important from a copyright perspective. There is no copyright in a lot of AI generated work without later creative human input and even then only the human inputs are usually covered. To be fair there is also no copyright in a lot of human generated output (i.e. bug fixes and migrations) as there is no creative output, so for that kind of work AI is actually ideal. Ref https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf

On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 8:27 PM Daniel Reis <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:

Hello all,

It begs the question of what is "AI generated code".
AI can assist code writing from code completion suggestions, to full design and code writing.
Or just assist with code reviews or issue resolution, without writing code.

In the end AI is just a tool.
Irresponsible use can happen with AI or any other automation tool.

What really matters is the behavior of people using these tools.
I feel that we might need a guideline regarding responsible use of automated tools, including AI, rather than specifically for AI use.
This could be fitted into a code of conduct for the community.

Thanks
Daniel

On 18/09/2025 08:41, Stefan Rijnhart wrote:
Dear all,

at least one contributor is planning again to flood the OCA projects 
with PRs for module migrations: https://github.com/OCA/web/issues/3285. 
This volume is likely made possible through automation, with an LLM 
generating the actual migration code (on top of, hopefully, a more 
deterministic tool like OCA's odoo-module-migrator).

Regardless of the volume and the submitter, if the submitter has 
reviewed, refined and tested the code generated by an LLM, this should 
not be a problem but as a reviewer I'd like to know what I can expect. 
Holger Brunn pointed out to me that in other projects, this may be 
covered by a demand in the guidelines to disclose LLM usage and its 
extend. For an example, see 
https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/pull/8289/files.

I would very much like to see such an addition to the OCA guidelines. 
Additionally, I would like to suggest that the basic premise (the 
generated code is indeed first self-reviewed, refined and tested) is 
also made explicit, and that it is unacceptable to pass on reviewer 
comments to the LLM only to copy back the LLM's response (which has 
happened to me on one or two occassions).

Can I have a temperature check for your support for such an addition to 
the guidelines? Or do you have other ideas or perspectives on the matter?

Cheers,
Stefan



-- 
Opener B.V. - Business solutions driven by open source collaboration

Stefan Rijnhart - Consultant/developer

mail:stefan@opener.amsterdam
tel: +31 (0) 6 1447 8606
web:https://opener.amsterdam
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

DANIEL REIS
MANAGING PARTNER
>> Schedule time on my calendar.
M: +351 919 991 307
E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

by Graeme Gellatly - 10:46 - 24 Sep 2025

Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions

Hi Quentin

I agree with everything you mention here. Let's not fall for the narrative of OpenAI.

Your personal take would be more suitable to be discussed in this thread: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15/contributors-2145247

I suggest to separate further discussions for a technical solution and community ideals on this topic.

Regards, Janik

On 9/24/25 10:02 AM, Quentin Dupont wrote:

Hello,

I agree with having changes in Guidelines to disclose LLM usage as in Ghostty project, thanks for the proposal

Raphaël telling "it is not going to stop any time soon..." are pure supposition and I think it's also part of the narrative of OpenAI etc. to let us think that this is inevitable.
No one can predicte futur so we can say if it's going to happen or not.

That's why we can start adding this guidelines and adjust in future times.
I think that's the bare minimum.
Personally, I would be in favor of adding a line to mention the disastrous consequences of these technologies, such as:
Most LLM technologies are based on the exploitation of infinite resources, while we are already dying from not having enough drinking water for everyone, modern slavery, and the takeover of our private lives by capitalist giants. With great responsibility comes great power: let's code less, code better, document more, and cooperate more.

___

This email thread contains other subjects so I will provide my point of view

This technologies and all technologies are based on mega structure deeply linked with capitalism

Do we want to depend on technologies that are so costly in terms of water and energy in a world where resources are inevitably becoming increasingly scarce?

Do we want to depend on technologies based on data theft, forced labor, and modern slavery?
It seems to me more ethical and even more pragmatic to work on tools that are resilient/robust in the face of current crises. (Like oca-port indeed!)

Also, are we going to fall for it again, thinking that it's wonderfully free?
For example, even Fabien Pickaers says so in the latest Micode video interview: currently, Odoo covers the cost of calls to ChatGPT, but tomorrow, it will probably be a paid service.

Depending on such a non-free (non-open source) tool also means proletarianizing ourselves, making us more enslaved to technology, even though the goal of open source is to emancipate ourselves as much as possible with tools that we have learned to modify and hack.

But I feel like I'm digressing from the main topic :D

Have a great day

Quentin

PS : some articles about AI bubble

https://thedailyadda.com/95-of-companies-see-zero-return-on-30-billion-generative-ai-spend-mit-report-finds/

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-08-20/say-farewell-to-the-ai-bubble-and-get-ready-for-the-crash
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/08/21/zuckerberg-freezes-ai-hiring-amid-bubble-fears/

Le 23/09/2025 à 21:52, Pierre Verkest a écrit :
I agree with Daniel.

Blog posts (the second is linked in the first) inspiring me recently on this topic: https://www.bitecode.dev/p/the-kids-are-alright

Regards,

Pierre
Le mar. 23 sept. 2025 à 10:41, Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org> a écrit :
+1

On 23/09/2025 10:28, Daniel Reis wrote:
Hello all,

It begs the question of what is "AI generated code".
AI can assist code writing from code completion suggestions, to full design and code writing.
Or just assist with code reviews or issue resolution, without writing code.

In the end AI is just a tool.
Irresponsible use can happen with AI or any other automation tool.

What really matters is the behavior of people using these tools.
I feel that we might need a guideline regarding responsible use of automated tools, including AI, rather than specifically for AI use.
This could be fitted into a code of conduct for the community.

Thanks
Daniel

On 18/09/2025 08:41, Stefan Rijnhart wrote:
Dear all,

at least one contributor is planning again to flood the OCA projects 
with PRs for module migrations: https://github.com/OCA/web/issues/3285. 
This volume is likely made possible through automation, with an LLM 
generating the actual migration code (on top of, hopefully, a more 
deterministic tool like OCA's odoo-module-migrator).

Regardless of the volume and the submitter, if the submitter has 
reviewed, refined and tested the code generated by an LLM, this should 
not be a problem but as a reviewer I'd like to know what I can expect. 
Holger Brunn pointed out to me that in other projects, this may be 
covered by a demand in the guidelines to disclose LLM usage and its 
extend. For an example, see 
https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/pull/8289/files.

I would very much like to see such an addition to the OCA guidelines. 
Additionally, I would like to suggest that the basic premise (the 
generated code is indeed first self-reviewed, refined and tested) is 
also made explicit, and that it is unacceptable to pass on reviewer 
comments to the LLM only to copy back the LLM's response (which has 
happened to me on one or two occassions).

Can I have a temperature check for your support for such an addition to 
the guidelines? Or do you have other ideas or perspectives on the matter?

Cheers,
Stefan



-- 
Opener B.V. - Business solutions driven by open source collaboration

Stefan Rijnhart - Consultant/developer

mail:stefan@opener.amsterdam
tel: +31 (0) 6 1447 8606
web:https://opener.amsterdam
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

DANIEL REIS
MANAGING PARTNER
>> Schedule time on my calendar.
M: +351 919 991 307
E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

Stuart J Mackintosh

Business & digital technology consultant

Open Digital Consulting Co

UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

Email: sjm@opendigital.cc

Web: https://opendigital.cc

IM: xmpp:sjm@opendigital.cc
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

Quentin DUPONT Informaticien. En repos le mercredi après-midi.

Pôle informatique 09 73 79 64 40 - Bureau Grap 09 72 32 33 17

GRAP - Groupement Régional Alimentaire de Proximité
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

-- 
Suggest a meeting: https://apmt.day/janikvonrotz/999120f2/
We are hiring: https://www.mint-system.ch/jobs

CTO Mint System GmbH 
Tel: +41 44 244 7222

by Janik von Rotz - 10:20 - 24 Sep 2025

Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions

Hello,

I agree with having changes in Guidelines to disclose LLM usage as in Ghostty project, thanks for the proposal

Raphaël telling "it is not going to stop any time soon..." are pure supposition and I think it's also part of the narrative of OpenAI etc. to let us think that this is inevitable.
No one can predicte futur so we can say if it's going to happen or not.

That's why we can start adding this guidelines and adjust in future times.
I think that's the bare minimum.
Personally, I would be in favor of adding a line to mention the disastrous consequences of these technologies, such as:
Most LLM technologies are based on the exploitation of infinite resources, while we are already dying from not having enough drinking water for everyone, modern slavery, and the takeover of our private lives by capitalist giants. With great responsibility comes great power: let's code less, code better, document more, and cooperate more.

___

This email thread contains other subjects so I will provide my point of view

This technologies and all technologies are based on mega structure deeply linked with capitalism

Do we want to depend on technologies that are so costly in terms of water and energy in a world where resources are inevitably becoming increasingly scarce?

Do we want to depend on technologies based on data theft, forced labor, and modern slavery?
It seems to me more ethical and even more pragmatic to work on tools that are resilient/robust in the face of current crises. (Like oca-port indeed!)

Also, are we going to fall for it again, thinking that it's wonderfully free?
For example, even Fabien Pickaers says so in the latest Micode video interview: currently, Odoo covers the cost of calls to ChatGPT, but tomorrow, it will probably be a paid service.

Depending on such a non-free (non-open source) tool also means proletarianizing ourselves, making us more enslaved to technology, even though the goal of open source is to emancipate ourselves as much as possible with tools that we have learned to modify and hack.

But I feel like I'm digressing from the main topic :D

Have a great day

Quentin

PS : some articles about AI bubble

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-08-20/say-farewell-to-the-ai-bubble-and-get-ready-for-the-crash
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/08/21/zuckerberg-freezes-ai-hiring-amid-bubble-fears/

Le 23/09/2025 à 21:52, Pierre Verkest a écrit :

I agree with Daniel.

Blog posts (the second is linked in the first) inspiring me recently on this topic: https://www.bitecode.dev/p/the-kids-are-alright

Regards,

Pierre
Le mar. 23 sept. 2025 à 10:41, Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org> a écrit :
+1

On 23/09/2025 10:28, Daniel Reis wrote:
Hello all,

It begs the question of what is "AI generated code".
AI can assist code writing from code completion suggestions, to full design and code writing.
Or just assist with code reviews or issue resolution, without writing code.

In the end AI is just a tool.
Irresponsible use can happen with AI or any other automation tool.

What really matters is the behavior of people using these tools.
I feel that we might need a guideline regarding responsible use of automated tools, including AI, rather than specifically for AI use.
This could be fitted into a code of conduct for the community.

Thanks
Daniel

On 18/09/2025 08:41, Stefan Rijnhart wrote:
Dear all,

at least one contributor is planning again to flood the OCA projects 
with PRs for module migrations: https://github.com/OCA/web/issues/3285. 
This volume is likely made possible through automation, with an LLM 
generating the actual migration code (on top of, hopefully, a more 
deterministic tool like OCA's odoo-module-migrator).

Regardless of the volume and the submitter, if the submitter has 
reviewed, refined and tested the code generated by an LLM, this should 
not be a problem but as a reviewer I'd like to know what I can expect. 
Holger Brunn pointed out to me that in other projects, this may be 
covered by a demand in the guidelines to disclose LLM usage and its 
extend. For an example, see 
https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/pull/8289/files.

I would very much like to see such an addition to the OCA guidelines. 
Additionally, I would like to suggest that the basic premise (the 
generated code is indeed first self-reviewed, refined and tested) is 
also made explicit, and that it is unacceptable to pass on reviewer 
comments to the LLM only to copy back the LLM's response (which has 
happened to me on one or two occassions).

Can I have a temperature check for your support for such an addition to 
the guidelines? Or do you have other ideas or perspectives on the matter?

Cheers,
Stefan



-- 
Opener B.V. - Business solutions driven by open source collaboration

Stefan Rijnhart - Consultant/developer

mail:stefan@opener.amsterdam
tel: +31 (0) 6 1447 8606
web:https://opener.amsterdam
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

DANIEL REIS
MANAGING PARTNER
>> Schedule time on my calendar.
M: +351 919 991 307
E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

Stuart J Mackintosh

Business & digital technology consultant

Open Digital Consulting Co

UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

Email: sjm@opendigital.cc

Web: https://opendigital.cc

IM: xmpp:sjm@opendigital.cc
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

--

Quentin DUPONT Informaticien. En repos le mercredi après-midi.

Pôle informatique 09 73 79 64 40 - Bureau Grap 09 72 32 33 17

GRAP - Groupement Régional Alimentaire de Proximité

by Quentin DUPONT - 10:00 - 24 Sep 2025

Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions

I agree with Daniel.

Blog posts (the second is linked in the first) inspiring me recently on this topic: https://www.bitecode.dev/p/the-kids-are-alright

Regards,

Pierre

Le mar. 23 sept. 2025 à 10:41, Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org> a écrit :

+1

On 23/09/2025 10:28, Daniel Reis wrote:
Hello all,

It begs the question of what is "AI generated code".
AI can assist code writing from code completion suggestions, to full design and code writing.
Or just assist with code reviews or issue resolution, without writing code.

In the end AI is just a tool.
Irresponsible use can happen with AI or any other automation tool.

What really matters is the behavior of people using these tools.
I feel that we might need a guideline regarding responsible use of automated tools, including AI, rather than specifically for AI use.
This could be fitted into a code of conduct for the community.

Thanks
Daniel

On 18/09/2025 08:41, Stefan Rijnhart wrote:
Dear all,

at least one contributor is planning again to flood the OCA projects 
with PRs for module migrations: https://github.com/OCA/web/issues/3285. 
This volume is likely made possible through automation, with an LLM 
generating the actual migration code (on top of, hopefully, a more 
deterministic tool like OCA's odoo-module-migrator).

Regardless of the volume and the submitter, if the submitter has 
reviewed, refined and tested the code generated by an LLM, this should 
not be a problem but as a reviewer I'd like to know what I can expect. 
Holger Brunn pointed out to me that in other projects, this may be 
covered by a demand in the guidelines to disclose LLM usage and its 
extend. For an example, see 
https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/pull/8289/files.

I would very much like to see such an addition to the OCA guidelines. 
Additionally, I would like to suggest that the basic premise (the 
generated code is indeed first self-reviewed, refined and tested) is 
also made explicit, and that it is unacceptable to pass on reviewer 
comments to the LLM only to copy back the LLM's response (which has 
happened to me on one or two occassions).

Can I have a temperature check for your support for such an addition to 
the guidelines? Or do you have other ideas or perspectives on the matter?

Cheers,
Stefan



-- 
Opener B.V. - Business solutions driven by open source collaboration

Stefan Rijnhart - Consultant/developer

mail:stefan@opener.amsterdam
tel: +31 (0) 6 1447 8606
web:https://opener.amsterdam
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

DANIEL REIS
MANAGING PARTNER
>> Schedule time on my calendar.
M: +351 919 991 307
E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

Stuart J Mackintosh

Business & digital technology consultant

Open Digital Consulting Co

UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

Email: sjm@opendigital.cc

Web: https://opendigital.cc

IM: xmpp:sjm@opendigital.cc
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

by Pierre Verkest - 09:51 - 23 Sep 2025

Re: Guidelines for LLM generated contributions

+1

On 23/09/2025 10:28, Daniel Reis wrote:

Hello all,

It begs the question of what is "AI generated code".
AI can assist code writing from code completion suggestions, to full design and code writing.
Or just assist with code reviews or issue resolution, without writing code.

In the end AI is just a tool.
Irresponsible use can happen with AI or any other automation tool.

What really matters is the behavior of people using these tools.
I feel that we might need a guideline regarding responsible use of automated tools, including AI, rather than specifically for AI use.
This could be fitted into a code of conduct for the community.

Thanks
Daniel

On 18/09/2025 08:41, Stefan Rijnhart wrote:
Dear all,

at least one contributor is planning again to flood the OCA projects 
with PRs for module migrations: https://github.com/OCA/web/issues/3285. 
This volume is likely made possible through automation, with an LLM 
generating the actual migration code (on top of, hopefully, a more 
deterministic tool like OCA's odoo-module-migrator).

Regardless of the volume and the submitter, if the submitter has 
reviewed, refined and tested the code generated by an LLM, this should 
not be a problem but as a reviewer I'd like to know what I can expect. 
Holger Brunn pointed out to me that in other projects, this may be 
covered by a demand in the guidelines to disclose LLM usage and its 
extend. For an example, see 
https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/pull/8289/files.

I would very much like to see such an addition to the OCA guidelines. 
Additionally, I would like to suggest that the basic premise (the 
generated code is indeed first self-reviewed, refined and tested) is 
also made explicit, and that it is unacceptable to pass on reviewer 
comments to the LLM only to copy back the LLM's response (which has 
happened to me on one or two occassions).

Can I have a temperature check for your support for such an addition to 
the guidelines? Or do you have other ideas or perspectives on the matter?

Cheers,
Stefan


-- 
Opener B.V. - Business solutions driven by open source collaboration

Stefan Rijnhart - Consultant/developer

mail:stefan@opener.amsterdam
tel: +31 (0) 6 1447 8606
web:https://opener.amsterdam
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--

DANIEL REIS
MANAGING PARTNER
>> Schedule time on my calendar.
M: +351 919 991 307
E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

--

Stuart J Mackintosh

Business & digital technology consultant

Open Digital Consulting Co

Open Digital Consulting Co Logo

UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

by Stuart J Mackintosh - 10:40 - 23 Sep 2025