From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a5-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.148]) (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 ABB241DEFE7 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2025 16:20:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.148 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759508441; cv=none; b=ghpJOPs1eWojKPTvAlqvZWHGRFmJ6EmTLVzbCFQ5qIpk+KH+2fyYpEGWD6kkXuoKHvSVi52oES4LdcT94yxYEFp8Jd6gB0/dS/TGcP3Nxiqwe9Mu29EH1bHenN3YEaVrzIMXtfkc/wmjTfzy6iizWj3uSyWtyOryPRQnzoEVYmE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759508441; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EByCztbuakdlUF06Pk2Dy41ZFprbuy9nItHVYR1AfB8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=CTX0LGp50RSh9pDpeU7gIvWVsvoFgt6Twzph5dntufgcmmfJUrOeByLILQqQ+P4dWYhrKjzONTBMTSqVLnuEpoAwKFZcRFgTSN9dLxM5z+Wj2wm8aDe50iGW0d2XD9f8C8gUb5S2Sr6eAbibVwib5xjTM9p0UYXeZpAg9qG3CK4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=GwtW4JDB; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=wdZmCmbp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.148 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="GwtW4JDB"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="wdZmCmbp" Received: from phl-compute-03.internal (phl-compute-03.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6E6EEC0281; Fri, 3 Oct 2025 12:20:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-03.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 03 Oct 2025 12:20:37 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1759508437; x=1759594837; bh=gZdIXo4WkT y9nZBOLlAepcOVNRrwXMLXp1s9F9ARJno=; b=GwtW4JDBwPQvyCYg0aqzXzfxzZ 3IYd4z0PojJxAjwZu+6GdRxJGPIkeq2blOAJMBixJckgkcHPdFxJpQ++y8ahN3sQ lVK2521ptO5HTaHrip/T/t8lXFZP+7FdT0M7s/+/IZNyB6+tzdG8hLWmbSH8CdTx EmmWcDb55ss6valJliLrekPla1XJ2/qst8OBU5j877fPp00Lkqc8e4mxpC7OIKpM BTUisi+d4jhGtYo56W64k4zVeApGKYuDwpIFudQr6F91xo2O82p0627gv+qEnJlw Ld89OrGCbbPPMXNMA+8YrOlEdxvjTkfGzTROAiB997ELKJ/wnwNNEoOjZmLw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1759508437; x=1759594837; bh=gZdIXo4WkTy9nZBOLlAepcOVNRrwXMLXp1s 9F9ARJno=; b=wdZmCmbpwZ3LC5hTp0DG/7kDlOd06XQ5q7SEHE06DSGbt38SSrq X/6D1hC5fv7IoIOr8az5FySyv1P0R70L3UOAqtL9WeF6M0A2JdLROu/+ksSU8aUX l3aLi44N9BDWfzfxibD+0oomYKRl4SO9GVSjZFRiQgpEDO7f9ba9+a9DBXLTxmB0 XPjzw5TQZGi+oIfW1FXc4Z3WMt+htPM1Po4irgosnV5fABnxM8U7w9re4r2bHir0 +J8pQnsA4f/3PSwGVyO2rFvCIrn+hJQ7B101eroiM8yjIrAK/uxNhOV1y70d68Q5 HRxsdq5SU92BASUyhZHozvqNLqv2tyKLkCQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggdekleefiecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpefhvfevufgjfhffkfgfgggtsehttdertddtredtnecuhfhrohhmpefluhhnihhoucev ucfjrghmrghnohcuoehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeefveetteejheeugeffledvteeiveffueefjeelueffteeigffgfedthfefieeg ieenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehgih htshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeelpdhmohguvgepshhm thhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopegthhhrihhsthhirghnrdgtohhuuggvrhesghhmrghilh drtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghp thhtohepmhgvsehtthgrhihlohhrrhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehrihgtkhesshhftg honhhsvghrvhgrnhgthidrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehsfhgtohhnshgvrhhv rghntgihrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepjhhohhgrnhhnvghsrdhstghhihhnuggvlhhinh esghhmgidruggvpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopegthhhr ihhstghoohhlsehtuhigfhgrmhhilhihrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsthgvrh esphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 3 Oct 2025 12:20:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Christian Couder Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Taylor Blau , Rick Sanders , Git at SFC , Johannes Schindelin , Patrick Steinhardt , Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] SubmittingPatches: add section about AI In-Reply-To: (Christian Couder's message of "Fri, 3 Oct 2025 10:51:13 +0200") References: <20251001140310.527097-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2025 09:20:34 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Christian Couder writes: >> A milder way to phrase this would be to jump directly to "we reject >> what the sender cannot explain when asked about it". "How does this >> work?" "Why is this a good thing to do?" "Where did it come from?" >> instead of saying "looks AI generated". >> >> It would sidestep the "who decides if it looks AI generated?" question. > > I don't think the "who decides if it looks AI generated?" question is > very relevant. If someone says that a patch looks mostly AI generated > and gives a good argument supporting this claim, it's the same as if > someone gives any other good argument against the patch. In the end, > the community and you decide if the argument is good enough and if the > patch should be rejected based on that (and other arguments for and > against the patch of course). And then who plays the final arbiter? One can keep insisting on a patch that looks to me an apparent AI slop that it was what one wrote oneself, but you may find it a plausible that it was a human creation. Then what? It is very much relevant to avoid such argument, because the point is irrelevant. We are trying to avoid accepting something the submitter has no rights to claim theirs, and requesting them to explain where it came from, how it works, etc. would be a better test than "does it look AI generated? to everybody?", wouldn't it?