[gdal-dev] Call for review: RFC111: AI/LLM tool policy

[Jan Heckman]

I have little ground to reply here, so I'll be short, no waves intended.
1) the human element prevails. If the LLM is the last in the (comment, bug)
chain, disregard or low priority.
2) Is there perhaps a way to work through low priority using an LLM?
3) that requires an LLM so maintainers are not flooded by LLM's.
If you think I am talking rubbish, I do not take that personally at all.
Keep up the great work,
Jan

On Mon, Feb 9, 2026 at 10:13 PM Even Rouault via gdal-dev <
gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

>
> Le 09/02/2026 à 21:57, Kurt Schwehr a écrit :
> > It looks pretty good to me.
> >
> > One comment:
> >
> > What about an AI that autonomously finds bugs that trigger sanitizers
> > that are verifiable like OSS Fuzz does?
>
> I'd say that's generally fine, because at the end you have a "digital"
> human (the sanitizer), that is something with inductive logic, checking
> the output of the AI. But there must also be some protection to avoid
> such tools to spam our issue tracker with hundreds of reports, ie it
> should first prioritize the most critical ones and make sure they are
> addressed before issuing reports of lesser criticity.  It is hard to
> encode the rules besides trying to apply empathy: try to put yourself at
> the receiving end of the flow and imagine how you'd react
>
>
> --
> http://www.spatialys.com
> My software is free, but my time generally not.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20260209/d2318bb9/attachment.htm>