On Thu, Jul 2, 2026, at 10:32 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> We've had this requirement in place in the Documentation for several
> months, but it's becoming clear that the signal to noise ratio from this
> is quite low.
>
> 1/ It's not universally followed. While many people do try to attribute
> the LLMs in good faith, not everyone does for various reasons.
>
> 2/ It basically serves as free advertising for proprietary LLM companies.
>
> 3/ It's not clear why we want to collect this info in the first place.
>
> Given that the data this provides is flawed at best and is being
> collected for a purpose that isn't clear, let's just kill the
> requirement for these tags from the kernel at large.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> ---
> Christian had proposed watering down the LLM attribution, but I think
> it's not productive to try and track this until we have a clearer sense
> of what we want to do with this information and how to make it more
> reliable.
I agree that the current tagging system is flawed and almost useless
for real analysis -- self-reporting and a nebulous definition of what
"LLM was used" actually means are red flags for any data scientist.
I don't have a stand on whether the tagging should be removed or fixed.
But today I ignore it (my 2-cents US) for these reasons.
--
Chuck Lever
