Re: on ai generated and code provenance

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 12:01:10PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Commit messages for AI-assisted changes
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> When AI/LLM tools produce or substantively shape your patch, add an
> ``AI-used-for:`` trailer.  The text of the trailer could be one or more of
> ``code``, ``tests``, ``docs``, ``research``, possibly followed by an
> explanation in parentheses::
> 
>     AI-used-for: tests, docs
>     AI-used-for: code
>     AI-used-for: code (refactoring)
>     AI-used-for: code (prototype)
>     AI-used-for: research
> 
> The trailer is intended as a clarification of your DCO obligations as well
> as to guide reviewers.  It is not intended for minimal presence such as
> autocomplete or asking for a pre-review of the patch, and it does not remove
> your responsibility to understand the changes that you are submitting.
> 
> Include the prompt in the commit message if it helps a reviewer judge the
> result:
> 
> * yes: "move field ``foo`` from ``struct aa`` to ``struct bb``.  If a
> function already has a local variable or parameter of type ``struct bb``,
> use it instead of accessing ``aa.bb``."
> 
> * yes: "add an implementation of the trait for ``Mutex<T: MyTrait>``,
> forwarding the member functions to ``T`` while taking the lock around the
> calls".
> 
> * no: "write user-facing documentation for the new tool"
> 
> * no: "write testcases for the new functions"

I don't understand what these yes/no examples are trying to show.
AI tools aren't really yet up to the task of generating a reasonable
qemu patchset from a single prompt. As a reviewer, I am not really
interested what kind of magic "think extra ultra hard" invocation was
used to coax the output from the model.

I actually would like to know which model was used, since I expect that
with time I'll learn to trust output from specific models more just
like I trust output from specific contributors more.

-- 
MST