docs: Add policy on AI generated code to contributing doc

Contributors making use of AI should clearly mention so in their
PR descriptions and include the prompt used to generate the pull
request.

diff --git a/docs/CONTRIBUTING.md b/docs/CONTRIBUTING.md
index a1a5aa7c2cea73f0bc4ee726c2325a5d1ed72d27..e9aa5924153a9f3f13b9bb5283837f73762767ac 100644 (file)
--- a/docs/CONTRIBUTING.md
+++ b/docs/CONTRIBUTING.md
@@ -50,6 +50,22 @@ See [reporting of security vulnerabilities](https://systemd.io/SECURITY).
 * Github will automatically add the `please-review` label when a pull request is opened or updated.
   If you need more information after a review, you can comment `/please-review` on the pull request to have Github add the `please-review` label to the pull request.
 
+## Using AI Code Generators
+
+If you use an AI code generator such as ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Llama or a similar tool, this must be
+disclosed in the commit messages and pull request description.
+
+The quality bar for contributions to this project is high, and unlikely to be met by an unattended AI tool,
+without significant manual corrections. Always thoroughly review and correct any such outputs, for example
+ensuring it accurately follows [Coding Style](https://systemd.io/CODING_STYLE) at the very minimum. Please do
+not fire-and-forget pull requests without any human intervention and review, as that will likely result in
+low-quality results that will not be accepted, and if done repeatedly, may result in the account being
+blocked. As with any other submissions, authors are responsible for doing due diligence and ensuring their
+submissions are compatible with the project's license as documented in LICENSES/README.md.
+
+As a guideline, if someone notices that a contribution (code, issues, comments) was made with the help of AI,
+there was likely a lack of human review of the AI generated output.
+
 ## Reviewing Pull Requests
 
 * See [filtered list of pull requests](https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+-label%3A%22reviewed%2Fneeds-rework+%F0%9F%94%A8%22+-label%3Aneeds-rebase+-label%3Agood-to-merge%2Fwith-minor-suggestions+-label%3A%22good-to-merge%2Fwaiting-for-ci+%F0%9F%91%8D%22+-label%3Apostponed+-label%3A%22needs-reporter-feedback+%E2%9D%93%22+-label%3A%22dont-merge+%F0%9F%92%A3%22+-label%3A%22ci-fails%2Fneeds-rework+%F0%9F%94%A5%22+sort%3Aupdated-desc) for requests that are ready for review.