From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 774C346D54A for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:03:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784649834; cv=none; b=Nj2dJNZe3vK4DYjWnXRfccC6B6d/lU+9W8OeGvT/JUW2z7CGEvprsWF/t2sGpP2Koqi+OEbPXYlXsGNyuzoevJFmb11rtu1Ig9gHaUHnsM0KQ2hfpx90+/dgSlKjaOrCXz7WDOoE3MwKePjgE5bh9Xyl2BNE1a0EuoSkzDK1n3I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784649834; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Kxnw4Na2pOx89/0IREFLqdz0u9HnEDzpOqIGsseKmgg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=eGw/TjU7c5L2dkqlEXvnEin9RUmtj8SLopl2uF8CwT2G8tYLNPQ6c3PpHZKzJ3fAARtDtX2ihBZo+YQIXpUrqZjgZSHK2sjwjV5QOt+AbuC98M5x3K4fOTCBmSJvQDwAmHGN6cGjR3MC4Hu5WLdUdMwGAA+xWPCBdP+Btbtm8L0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=szvTlNKW; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="szvTlNKW" Received: from killaraus.ideasonboard.com (2001-14ba-70f3-e800--a06.rev.dnainternet.fi [IPv6:2001:14ba:70f3:e800::a06]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29798517; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 18:02:52 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1784649772; bh=Kxnw4Na2pOx89/0IREFLqdz0u9HnEDzpOqIGsseKmgg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=szvTlNKWULS0aBnlYbI/JhNK7qk+0vnrZ6i8U6C90NMRMPRSPG+y5WNNeEony1eig KVxvlJfAeC900ywcUYEIndZUKQvT/JHFCTrv+26/J3zU2rTCOdKhJpjXCytKy8sGGs DtKHvUUBYr87qhvzYWinOqaeJJo+lum/WuVViOIg= Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:03:50 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: August Zeller Cc: users@kernel.org, Linux Media Mailing List Subject: Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko? Message-ID: <20260721160350.GD536385@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> References: <20260715005909.GF1656185@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <20260715161111.GC1778116@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <20260715174138.GI1778116@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <20260715185141.GJ1778116@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <20260715201301.GB1824265@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 05:10:11PM +0200, August Zeller wrote: > The frustrating part of this situation is how everyone arguing on both > sides is right in some way. > > 1. The tools work, yes. This used to be up for debate until recently, > but now it's clear that AI can enhance contributor *and* maintainer > productivity in the kernel if used correctly. > > 2. On the other hand, it is also true that LLMs and derived tools are a > comprehensive manifestation of the problems of the industry and there > are valid ethical concerns regarding access discrimination, copyright, > workload externalization, job loss, etc. > > 3. However, a "no AI used" policy is unenforcible. Many people would > use these tools regardless without announcing it, which is the worse > outcome. If we're transparent about our AI usage, then at least > everyone is aware and can treat the affected code with the right level > of scrutiny. > > 4. Moreover, a "no AI used" policy isn't the best thing to do > technically, as AI has proven to be very useful to catch bugs, review > code, and even write some new code. Some critical bugs that we could've > caught with AI *will* slip under the radar if we refuse to use those > tools, while bad actors will gladly use the newest models to find > exploits. I don't think there's much disagreement on all that. I'm not aware of anyone trying to get the kernel to adopt a "no AI" policy. > Overall, even though I've been known as a great AI skeptic in the past, > I'm with Linus on this issue. *Accepting and embracing AI may not be a > desirable thing to do, but the alternative is even worse.* -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart