From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (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 3E94948BD3F; Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:08:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782922094; cv=none; b=M8f6gR8IAwgDBcTkDiDFJwXuKhlsWwl1DQ3NEbOFPD4iPh2eXfVJiNRo0VS+n69Cq8uKcHaSecC+EQ/wZavo+O6wqntrZAnn7g7WHEgkHgLbaKtIkv4UvUdYtMjfeZxQdQDvG4M0RLTwfO/Z+UQD4c6Ihv2Jez+6h78qk9ZDRIs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782922094; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xat0S/7hhqd/pGIHTCtDuUUbp6Tj4fuNwpwliP/9u8o=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qyWf7hs707p4oj03iUV3x/GTeUytOpN1kj7UOm3CswY8lvN6SovlQa058wzdF2COLM7DJhtsJ0eF0q/LIYPg83oo4ceOjAcm1aKdR383dYP3UT/z2WvUNnwbPzr9UxY4hwvqMzbpRZfM5qoRTcSXJLMJpvdvu6HhVPpohaXlnqs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=R3unUPoW; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="R3unUPoW" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 695B841599 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1782922092; bh=32P2g6yBGgImUvn7wpL6P00mVW8ED72vfqoB2ujBsag=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=R3unUPoWerSGDmsBFQ8SLsl1L+fZ1NdJXYUbgzj+VM9Jnr/U/13Da3ySRDlf2JFhJ l69LtblfKO8TKZ57Vz2al1CEwJ4vZhkztl4jFHAh+GjVsTqMjoIYYRNpJM8cVl6ava Mos3h11NXCVF6tYscP/3HhApL8gjwu7q1ARlzYFNKqa4IFsE4URL22cdD/q1pzJlC7 V1SbNLwZl/EE6TJIKzlHN9I+iL5BwYF4dXKudFMLhMw1Dlk3D1PX0Wq0I2a9F95djM BFoce6HldvfHIcuUvGm7349GzFimtsyR5ulTFkze988P+mt01ZxF99qkpsAV7sQkJ1 phoafNFU39WyQ== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:27b::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 695B841599; Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:08:12 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Christian Brauner , Linus Torvalds Cc: Jens Axboe , David Hildenbrand , Jeff Layton , Vlastimil Babka , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, "Christian Brauner (Amutable)" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] coding-assistants: simplify attribution In-Reply-To: <20260701-work-coding-assistants-v1-1-a20a94d1d606@kernel.org> References: <20260701-work-coding-assistants-v1-1-a20a94d1d606@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2026 10:08:11 -0600 Message-ID: <87jyreofpw.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Christian Brauner writes: > 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? >From my memory of the discussions: - If a specific LLM turns out to be in a bad position with regard to some copyright ruling, we can identify the commits that might have been tainted by it. - Similarly should an LLM prove to have an inclination toward specific types of security issues. Whether either of these would ever actually prove useful is not something I can hazard a guess for. > 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? ...wasn't in my plans ... > 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. The widespread ignoring of the disclosure rule is, IMO, something we need to address somehow; were I still on the TAB, I'd be raising the issue there. Either we find a way to be serious about enforcing the disclosure rule, or we should just drop it. A rule that everybody ignores is less than useful. (That said, 706 commits in 7.2-rc1 include Assisted-by tags, so *some* people are complying. That's about 5% of the total. What do we think is the actual use of LLMs for the creation of kernel patches?) jon