Christian Brauner <[email protected]> writes: > I remain very confused by our coding assistant contribution guidelines. > I'm going to be a bit polemic now but this seriously in good faith. > > Why precisely do we require all this detailed information about what > specific coding assistant was used?
>From my memory of the discussions: - If a specific LLM turns out to be in a bad position with regard to some copyright ruling, we can identify the commits that might have been tainted by it. - Similarly should an LLM prove to have an inclination toward specific types of security issues. Whether either of these would ever actually prove useful is not something I can hazard a guess for. > I find it very irritating that our git history has effectively started > to function a bit like a free advertising platform for a bunch of AI > companies and their proprietary agents and models. > > And it reamins unclear to me what exactly we do get out of this detailed > information: Do we want to run statistical analysis on what agent and > model is used the most and publish that on LWN at some point? ...wasn't in my plans ... > I acknowledge that my stance is even more radical: imho we would just > stop it with any disclosure requirements completely. It's useless imho. > We already see that other than core contributors most people don't care > and will just not disclose their usage of AI. The widespread ignoring of the disclosure rule is, IMO, something we need to address somehow; were I still on the TAB, I'd be raising the issue there. Either we find a way to be serious about enforcing the disclosure rule, or we should just drop it. A rule that everybody ignores is less than useful. (That said, 706 commits in 7.2-rc1 include Assisted-by tags, so *some* people are complying. That's about 5% of the total. What do we think is the actual use of LLMs for the creation of kernel patches?) jon
