On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 12:34:34PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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?
Why would you take information _away_ from maintainers? You're making every LLM 'accusation' a risk for a maintainer because you might get the 'how dare you accuse me of using an LLM rah rah rah' response. Why not eliminate that in at least some cases? I continue to be baffled at people's opposition adding a single line to emails, or a single little comment on the end of it. I do agree with Vlasta that we need to have a clearer way to just say no (TM) if we strongly suspect an LLM. I had a very unpleasant experience dealing with blowback for doing that in a _very_ blatant case and I'd rather not repeat it if it's at all possible. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof Thanks, Lorenzo
