Re: [PATCH RFC] coding-assistants: simplify attribution

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 01/07/2026 17:54, Christian Brauner wrote:
> I remain very confused by our coding assistant contribution guidelines.
> I'm going to be a bit polemic now but this seriously in good faith.
> 
> Why precisely do we require all this detailed information about what
> specific coding assistant was used?
> 
> I find it very irritating that our git history has effectively started
> to function a bit like a free advertising platform for a bunch of AI
> companies and their proprietary agents and models.
> 
> And it reamins unclear to me what exactly we do get out of this detailed
> information: Do we want to run statistical analysis on what agent and
> model is used the most and publish that on LWN at some point?
> 
> I acknowledge that my stance is even more radical: imho we would just
> stop it with any disclosure requirements completely. It's useless imho.
> We already see that other than core contributors most people don't care
> and will just not disclose their usage of AI. I think this is entirely
> pointless and worse it brings in undefined legal status as well. It's
> not like recent events of pulling certain models from the face of the
> earth have made this any less concerning.
> 
> But fine, if we want to do this can we please just dumb it down to
> 
> Assisted-by: LLM
> 

Yes, I agree. Useful information would be the model or trained data,
e.g. to judge for any copyright issues, but I doubt anyone will ever
provide such details.

I also see little value to keep even the Assisted-by tag in the first
place. I am interested in seeing named respectable tools in commit msg
as reasons for doing this commit, e.g. I am fixing warning from Smatch
so I mention Smatch. Sashiko fits this purpose as well. I have no
interests to see "Claude" as reason of doing something.

Best regards,
Krzysztof