\n
\n ## Summary
\n(summary): #summary<\/p>\n
This document establishes a policy for how LLMs can be used when contributing to `rust-lang\/rust`.
\nSubtrees, submodules, and dependencies from crates.io are not in scope.
\nOther repositories in the `rust-lang` organization are not in scope.<\/p>\n
This policy is intended to live in (Forge)(https:\/\/forge.rust-lang.org\/) as a living document, not as a dead RFC.
\nIt will be linked from `CONTRIBUTING.md` in rust-lang\/rust as well as from the rustc- and std-dev-guides.<\/p>\n
## Moderation guidelines<\/p>\n
This PR is preceded by (an enormous amount of discussion on Zulip)(https:\/\/rust-lang.zulipchat.com\/#narrow\/channel\/588130-project-llm-policy).
\nAlmost every conceivable angle has been discussed to death;
\nthere have been upwards of 3000 messages, not even counting discussion on GitHub.
\nWe initially doubted whether we could reach consensus at all.<\/p>\n
Therefore, we ask to bound the scope of this PR specifically to the policy itself.
\nIn particular, we mark several topics as out of scope below.
\nWe still consider these topics to be important, we simply do not believe this is the right place to discuss them.<\/p>\n
No comment on this PR may mention the following topics:<\/p>\n
– Long-term social or economic impact of LLMs
\n– The environmental impact of LLMs
\n– Anything to do with the copyright status of LLM output
\n– Moral judgements about people who use LLMs<\/p>\n
We have asked the moderation team to help us enforce these rules.<\/p>\n
## Feedback guidelines<\/p>\n
We are aware that parts of this policy will make some people very unhappy.
\nAs you are reading, we ask you to consider the following.<\/p>\n
– Can you think of a *concrete* improvement to the policy that addresses your concern? Consider:
\n – Whether your change will make the policy harder to moderate
\n – Whether your change will make it harder to come to a consensus
\n– Does your concern need to be addressed before merging or can it be addressed in a follow-up?
\n – Keep in mind the cost of *not* creating a policy.<\/p>\n
### If your concern is for yourself or for your team
\n– What are the *specific* parts of your workflow that will be disrupted?
\n – In particular we are *only* interested in workflows involving `rust-lang\/rust`.
\n Other repositories are not affected by this policy and are therefore not in scope.
\n– Can you live with the disruption? Is it worth blocking the policy over?<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
Previous versions of this document were discussed on Zulip, and we have made edits in responses to suggestions there.<\/p>\n
## Motivation
\n(motivation): #motivation<\/p>\n
– Many people find LLM-generated code and writing deeply unpleasant to read or review.
\n– Many people find LLMs to be a significant aid to learning and discovery.
\n– `rust-lang\/rust` is currently dealing with a deluge of low-effort “slop” PRs primarily authored by LLMs.
\n – Having *a* policy makes these easier to moderate, without having to take every single instance on a case-by-case basis.<\/p>\n
This policy is *not* intended as a debate over whether LLMs are a good or bad idea, nor over the long-term impact of LLMs.
\nIt is only intended to set out the future policy of `rust-lang\/rust` itself.<\/p>\n
## Drawbacks
\n(drawbacks): #drawbacks<\/p>\n
– This bans some valid usages of LLMs.
\n We intentionally err on the side of banning too much rather than too little in order to make the policy easy to understand and moderate.
\n– This intentionally does not address the moral, social, and environmental impacts of LLMs.
\n These topics have been extensively discussed on Zulip without reaching consensus, but this policy is relevant regardless of the outcome of these discussions.
\n– This intentionally does not attempt to set a project-wide policy.
\n We have attempted to come to a consensus for upwards of a month without significant process.
\n We are cutting our losses so we can have *something* rather than adhoc moderation decisions.
\n– This intentionally does not apply to subtrees of rust-lang\/rust.
\n We don’t have the same moderation issues there, so we don’t have time pressure to set a policy in the same way.<\/p>\n
## Rationale and alternatives
\n(rationale-and-alternatives): #rationale-and-alternatives<\/p>\n
– We could create a project-wide policy, rather than scoping it to `rust-lang\/rust`.
\n This has the advantage that everyone knows what the policy is everywhere, and that it’s easy to make things part of the mono-repo at a later date.
\n It has the disadvantage that we think it is nigh-impossible to get everyone to agree.
\n There are also reasons for teams to have different policies; for example, the standard for correctness is much higher within the compiler than within Clippy.
\n– We could have a more strict policy that removes the (threshold of originality)(https:\/\/fsfe.org\/news\/2025\/news-20250515-01.en.html) condition.
\n This has the advantage that our policy becomes easier to moderate and understand.
\n It has the disadvantage that it becomes easy for people to intend to
\n follow the policy, but be put in a position where their only choices
\n are to either discard the PR altogether, rewrite it from scratch, or
\n tell “white lies” about whether an LLM was involved.
\n– We could have a more strict policy that bans LLMs altogether.
\n It seems unlikely we will be able to agree on this, and we believe attempting it will cause many people to leave the project.<\/p>\n
## Prior art
\n(prior-art): #prior-art<\/p>\n
This prior art section is taken almost entirely from (Jane Lusby’s summary of her research)(rust-lang\/leadership-council#273 (comment)),
\nalthough we have taken the liberty of moving the Rust project’s prior art to the top.
\nWe thank her for her help.<\/p>\n
### Rust
\n– (Moderation team’s spam policy)(https:\/\/github.com\/rust-lang\/moderation-team\/blob\/main\/policies\/spam.md\/#fully-or-partially-automated-contribs)
\n– (Compiler team’s “burdensome PRs” policy)(rust-lang\/compiler-team#893)
\n### Other organizations
\n These are organized along a spectrum of AI friendliness, where top is least friendly, and bottom is most friendly.
\n– full ban
\n – (postmarketOS)(https:\/\/docs.postmarketos.org\/policies-and-processes\/development\/ai-policy.html)
\n – also explicitly bans encouraging others to use AI for solving problems related to postmarketOS
\n – multi point ethics based rational with citations included
\n – (zig)(https:\/\/ziglang.org\/code-of-conduct\/)
\n – philosophical, cites (Profession (novella))(https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Profession_(novella))
\n – rooted in concerns around the construction and origins of original thought
\n – (servo)(https:\/\/book.servo.org\/contributing\/getting-started.html#ai-contributions)
\n – more pragmatic, directly lists concerns around ai, fairly concise
\n – (qemu)(https:\/\/www.qemu.org\/docs\/master\/devel\/code-provenance.html#use-of-ai-content-generators)
\n – pragmatic, focuses on copyright and licensing concerns
\n – explicitly allows AI for exploring api, debugging, and other non generative assistance, other policies do not explicitly ban this or mention it in any way
\n– allowed with supervision, human is ultimately responsible
\n – (scipy)(https:\/\/github.com\/scipy\/scipy\/pull\/24583\/changes)
\n – strict attribution policy including name of model
\n – (llvm)(https:\/\/llvm.org\/docs\/AIToolPolicy.html)
\n – (blender)(https:\/\/devtalk.blender.org\/t\/ai-contributions-policy\/44202)
\n – (linux kernel)(https:\/\/kernel.org\/doc\/html\/next\/process\/coding-assistants.html)
\n – quite concise but otherwise seems the same as many in this category
\n – (mesa)(https:\/\/gitlab.freedesktop.org\/mesa\/mesa\/-\/blob\/main\/docs\/submittingpatches.rst)
\n – framed as a contribution policy not an AI policy, AI is listed as a tool that can be used but emphasizes same requirements that author must understand the code they contribute, seems to leave room for partial understanding from new contributors.
\n > Understand the code you write at least well enough to be able to explain why your changes are beneficial to the project.
\n – (forgejo)(https:\/\/codeberg.org\/forgejo\/governance\/src\/branch\/main\/AIAgreement.md)
\n – bans AI for review, does not explicitly require contributors to understand code generated by ai.
\n One could interpret the “accountability for contribution lies with contributor even if AI is used” line as implying this requirement, though their version seems poorly worded imo.
\n – (firefox)(https:\/\/firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org\/contributing\/ai-coding.html)
\n – (ghostty)(https:\/\/github.com\/ghostty-org\/ghostty\/blob\/main\/AI_POLICY.md)
\n – pro-AI but views “bad users” as the source of issues with it and the only reason for what ghostty considers a “strict AI policy”
\n – (fedora)(https:\/\/communityblog.fedoraproject.org\/council-policy-proposal-policy-on-ai-assisted-contributions\/)
\n – clearly inspired and is cited by many of the above, but is definitely framed more pro-ai than the derived policies tend to be
\n– (curl)(https:\/\/curl.se\/dev\/contribute.html#on-ai-use-in-curl)
\n – does not explicitly require humans understand contributions, otherwise policy is similar to above policies
\n– (linux foundation)(https:\/\/www.linuxfoundation.org\/legal\/generative-ai)
\n – encourages usage, focuses on legal liability, mentions that tooling exists to help automate managing legal liability, does not mention specific tools
\n– In progress
\n – NixOS
\n – NixOS\/nixpkgs#410741<\/p>\n
## Unresolved questions
\n(unresolved-questions): #unresolved-questions<\/p>\n