 There we go. Hello, good night, good afternoon, good morning, everybody around the world. This is the GULS Summer of Code office hour from today, April 27th, one week before announcement of the selected projects and contributors. So where are we standing right now? The mentors did a lot of work in grading and ranking all the proposals and projects, built the project teams and doing a lot of discussions because this year it was particularly difficult to choose. So we had over, let's say, I don't know if we can disclose it, but over 60 proposals, so huge amounts, a good proportion of very good ones and only limited resources. So we had to choose and it was not easy at all. We have a choice. We have our list of projects and mentors that we're submitting to Google in a particular order. So we say these are the projects we can mentor this year. Please support and sponsor these projects and they're going to decide if there is enough money for all the proposals for that. I'm crossing fingers. I think that all projects that we submitted will be accepted by Google, but this is an unknown as we're getting into another crisis, but turbulent times in some of our industry. Right now, the deadline for the last weeks is at 1800 UTC today. Then it's closed and then mentors can rest for a week until the announcement of next week. So the announcement by Google will be exactly in one week at 1800 UTC. So that will be so that will be in the middle of the night for India and Asia. So you will learn it in the middle or you will learn it in the morning or if you want to stay late because you're too curious. We're welcome. The day after that on Friday, usual time, we will hold the office hour where we will cheer the selected people, the winners and we'll discuss and see and give advice to the people that were selected, but also advise and follow up to the people that didn't make it this year. So and a lot of very good work. My curiosity won't let me sleep, says Harsh. Well, I can share that feeling. So this is the news from this side. So we're in the middle. Nothing really strong to share or to work. Just need waiting. I know it's a nail biting stress for the people on the selection part, but this is how it goes. So other questions, comments or things. I hope that Harsh will not miss his sleep for one week now. So I hope that the day before he will be able to sleep a little bit and just stay up the night with the announcement. I think we can thanks all the contribution and the proposal we got. It was very difficult to choose. It was very interesting to read the proposal. And so and I think we can say we recognize that a lot of them, a lot of people put a lot of work in those proposals and that we appreciate that. Our job was hard, but we do recognize the work that have been done. And it was hard work, but rewarding for us as well. It's satisfying also for us to see the good proposal, good energy and things. Yeah, thank you very much, Adrienne. You summarized it very well. Very satisfying. If he wants to add something else or raise a subject, then I have some go ahead. I like if I have an idea that I missed and during the recording period, if I think that it would be nice to do, can I implement that if I get selected? I'm going to try to rephrase it to be sure that I understood your question correctly. So your question is, I'm not sure I understood it correctly. So if you are selected or if you're not selected. Chris, did you hear? Go ahead, Mukul. If I am selected and with discussion with my mentor that like I came up with an amazing idea and then can I implement that idea like that is not mentioned in my proposal? Or do I have to go through that proposal? No, we don't have to. No, no, these old ideas. It was a proposal and proposals like an open source project are things that change evolve depending on the discoveries that are made. Now, one danger is that you try to embrace too much and that you widen the scope of what you're trying to do far too and that you will not end correctly. So and this is during the bonding period that this will happen when the project teams, the contributor will work together to finalize the project plan. And the project plan is saying we're going to start with that feature with this epic with this feature and so you put milestones one after the other. And so we're going to do that and if we reach that then we have that additional stretch goal. All these things are open. It's the proposal is not a contract. It's a base. It's a starting point. Somebody wants to add something to that? No, I think the proposal is like a good plan. It doesn't survive the first activity you have. It's larger than open source. It's probably the same for in company's work and so on. And again, if you mentioned that with the mentor and with the team of mentors and everyone agrees that was a good idea, let's go for it. There's no need. It's not a strict plan. The proposal is just for us to see what you understood of the project and what you want, what you see evolution or what needs to be done for the project, but not a strict plan. Yeah, we're clarifying that during the bonding period how it goes. Okay. Thank you. I'll leave the mic open for a couple of minutes or a little time. Otherwise, we can't stop here as there's no pressing subject. We spent some time together. That's good. I have one topic that I wanted to discuss. There was an issue of plagiarism. One time. So what do we consider plagiarism in open source? Like in the ZSOC there is mentioned, plagiarism of code, what can be copied and what cannot be copied? What is considered as plagiarism? That's a good question. And that's a good question that it's, for instance, a good conference topic to explore the subject and ask people what it is. As we said, the principle of open source is that the expression is you're building on the shoulders of giants, of the people that were before, or people that are working together with you. And this can only be done by sharing ideas, make them grow and build on them. What is important, like in science, is that you do a correct attribution and say, this idea comes from that person. This part of code, I copied. I improved it or extended it with this and this and this. So you absolutely need to be respectful to other people's work, exactly in the same way as you want other people to respect your work. So don't do to others what you wouldn't like others to do to you. So plagiarism is something that's used only in a competition. Okay, GSOC has a competition part because only limited numbers will be selected. But working with the ideas of others is a very important part of open source and sharing ideas and making them grow. This is a critical value of open source. So we cannot use plagiarism in this scope. Am I clear with what I tried to explain? So if I take a piece of code from SAPA flow, I took that from here in comment or in the PR, I'm raising what should be the optimal approach for that to be right? In the comment, unless it's super trivial, but if you find an algorithm or a neat trick, just add it as a comment and say these following lines or the principle of this method comes from this particular post in Stack Overflow, for instance, just mentioning. Exactly the same way as you do it when you're doing a presentation and you're using pictures. At the minimal you should do is say where did you get that photo or that picture? So that you don't claim that it is yours. There are very strict codes that you need to follow in attributing your piece of knowledge or intellectual property. Do they discuss about that in school? No. In my school they didn't discuss about this. There was no plagiarism. You can copy it from this and this is the first time I'm in plagiarism. But yeah, this is why it's very different from the purely school procedure or a way of working. In the scientific world research, there are other rules that need to be followed. And in open source it's even another interpretation. Chris, you wanted to say something? Yeah, so it also depends on which school you go to. It's like normally in the West it is always like discussed at the beginning of the program. But it has taught in Hong Kong too in most universities but in China I'm not sure and in India I'm not sure. I know that these kind of things are so plagiarism is considered cheating in many schools because they're expecting that you do all the work yourself because you're learning. And then you need to start doing your first research paper but there you cannot invent everything. You read other people's theory, other people's techniques or it depends on what field you are and you need to be taught how you handle that. And open source is something completely different because having the ideas flow and exchange and moving very rapidly behind is important. There is an important competition. Being first, being successful with the idea, being able to put the idea further. This is also an important element. But the flow of idea, this makes it really great. Hey, I have this idea. I start with it. I'm running out of time. I can't finish it. I can't. Here, if you want to pick my idea, continue building it. Here, be my guest and here, continue building. Would make me proud. See the spirit? So recently we have chat Zipiti. So if I use that and to create a piece of code. So will that be considered a plagiarism? It is inside the source. It says that it has created that code from scratch and it doesn't cite the source from which it has used to generate that code. So what should it do? If I'm using chat Zipiti, consider a case like I'm using chat Zipiti to help me. Now, we need to put the scope correctly and we are running out of time there. The scope of what is plagiarism and how and so. And we had an interesting start of discussion last week about artificial intelligence. One of the biggest, how can I say that a culprit, I think is the correct English word or dangers with chat Zipiti, is that it's so assertive and it looks good that you turn off your own intelligence and are not critical and say and saying this will work. This is bug free while it is not. It is something that people call an artificial intelligence that's in fact a super quick search engine that learns and these search engines can be wrong and can also be made purposefully wrong. People can trick it to make you and assert things that are just a stupidity. I'm from a history background and I've seen a statement and I could spot where it was created on Wikipedia and this stupid was about women's rights related to the end of the First World War. So something but this assertion exploded on the web and people were just re quoting it with chat Zipiti will just have that by the power of a thousand. It will help at one time but you absolutely need to be critical and this is why use your brain. Don't trust it. It's a helper can give you good tips as trusting everything that you find on Google or you find on the internet. People are very good in writing things that he knows what he's talking. No, he doesn't use your brain. Try it. Just my personal comment. Yes, I agree with that. Like it wrote a piece of code that was completely illusible so I can agree with that but it can help and people have also treated it to do certain things which should not be possible. Like saying for a certain race or certain things which is like wrong and people have treated it to do. So I think like tragic days. But what about plagiarism? Like what about the code it is writing? Anyway, chat Zipiti is one of the problems behind it. It uses sources on the internet. It learns from it. It should quote where he learned it. How it's done but it's hidden behind that so you don't know where its knowledge is coming from. But if you yourself use information produced by chat Zipiti, just attribute it and say this code has been generated by chat Zipiti on that date with these parameters or these data or this is not coming from me. It comes from chat Zipiti and like it's a hearsay. So it's now making people believe that you created that while it's coming from this type of engine, this is not plagiarism. This is cheating and you'll have once it's people find it out that in fact you make believe that you can do all these things and that in fact you can't or that you're impersonating something else. Once people find that out, you're out of the game. So the benefit that you get from it is very dangerous and limited. But the reason of citing something is that if in future it is found wrong or if in future it is found like that something was where was it taken from or like what was the thought process on creating that or how it was produced the purpose of citing like in my opinion. So if we cite like it was produced by chat Zipiti, then how will we come to the conclusion that like how it was created or something like that that how it was generated or other information we might find if like say it was cited from stack of flow like if it is cited from stack of flow like then we will know that for sure what question lead to this and what discussion was there what discussion went there. So we might get some more information regarding that like say we copied say we took a function from stack of flow and cite that and so like the person who copied was like took it from the question itself and not the solution. So that generated an error here and from that citing we can understand that what happened but if we cite chat Zipiti like we might not see that so like what's the thought on this. Yeah, here Mokul this is a very wide question and very interesting one. To conclude the discussion here in this forum just be aware that chat Zipiti does not have the correct level of quality. The second thing is that once it gets that level that we can trust it and reuse it and it can replace the coder or developers or human beings in many things and it's not just a tool to help then we have a big problem and we can start looking for another type of existence. At the same level as here in Europe 100 years ago so people that could go round with horses was a key skill and then came the steam engine then came the internal combustion engine and all these jobs were replaced. It might happen for computing at this stage I consider it not a technology that has the necessary level and has dangers in it that make me but here I'm an old man so but I've also seen a lot of things. If I may just add a comment on that I think if you ask the correct question to any AI you might have somewhat a correct answer or almost correct answer probably not on code but at least on other subjects but if you start on the code that was generated and you don't say it we might not see it out of the box we might not because everyone codes differently. The problem is when you need to support your code when you need to maintain it when you need to test it AI won't help you there because it can't and at the day we are speaking it can't and this is where we will anyone with a bit of experience in IT will see that you didn't understood the code that you claim to be yours and as Jean-Marc said the problem is not using codes coming from elsewhere because like a teacher told me like a decade ago we are not really creating new code we are just creating new glue between pieces of code and when you when if you don't if you claim a piece of code to be yours when it's not your credibility on your next submission won't exist and it will harm you more than the benefit of claiming that it was your code and personally I don't have any problem seeing a piece of code not coming from your mind if you understand it if you are able to tweak it if you are able to modify it to suit your needs or suit the needs of the future you are trying to code or to fix the test you are trying to fix and all that I'm fine I'm fine with that but if you're not and you claim it's your code I won't personally I won't and again very very good summary yeah it's a personal it's a personal feat but yeah I personally don't have any objection on code coming from AI or any answers coming from AI as long as it's correct and you understand it as soon as one of those two prerequisites are not met then I do have a big problem with it that's all very good here there's an interesting subject is already the second time that it comes up and an interesting one I suggest that we stop at this stage I thank you I just see somebody joining but we're going to close the call so thank you thank you for the people for the questions thank you for the comments I thank you all for your patience and hard work for submitting the proposals for reviewing them and we now in the last stretch for the for the selection so all the good and I hope that harsh will sleep enough while waiting for the results yeah okay let's conclude let's finish here we'll meet again next week on Friday where we will congratulate the people that are selected and discuss with the people that were not selected and see how we'll how we'll move forward okay thank you very much bye bye everybody bye thank you so much bye everyone have a good day