On 02/07/2026 10:44, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote: > On 7/2/26 10:12, Jori Koolstra wrote: >> Ah, I still reigniting this discussion again :) >> >> What about a combination of what David and Jeff say? The whole point >> seems to me that the salient information is not that an LLM was used (or >> are we going to tag Sashiko as well or any other LLM-based code review >> tool?), but what is was used to do. This information may be relevant for >> how the review is approached. The latter should perhaps only be in the >> cover letter and then we can drop the assisted-by tags altogether. >> >> The question about enforcement remains. > > It's not possible to enforce it. People can deny it if the tag is missing > and you confront them and even though the submission has many signs of being > obviously LLM, there is no definite proof. We've seen (likely, as there's no > proof!) that happen in mm. > > Such situation then penalizes those who disclose so obviously they won't. We > should drop the tag and instead think how we can empower maintainers to be > able to use their own judgment and deprioritize dealing with what they > perceive as LLM slop, without fearing consequences of not being properly > responsible etc, and not rely on any non-enforceable tags for that.
+1 I see no benefits of enforcing the tag for these exact reasons. Every LLM slop will miss the tag. OTOH, seeing reasonable contribution with the tag makes my spider-senses tingling and causing unnecessary prejudice. If the contribution is reasonable, how does the tag information helps me? I trust (or not) the person, regardless what tool they use. And if we think about any future possible copyright issues with LLM contributions (like if there is ever a ruling that model trained on BSD data creates BSD-derivative work etc), does that tag anyhow solve it? Like if that ruling appear we will go through the history and revert the commits? Best regards, Krzysztof
