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

[Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 12:34:34PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/07/2026 10:44, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
> > On 7/2/26 10:12, Jori Koolstra wrote:
> >> Ah, I still reigniting this discussion again :)
> >>
> >> What about a combination of what David and Jeff say? The whole point
> >> seems to me that the salient information is not that an LLM was used (or
> >> are we going to tag Sashiko as well or any other LLM-based code review
> >> tool?), but what is was used to do. This information may be relevant for
> >> how the review is approached. The latter should perhaps only be in the
> >> cover letter and then we can drop the assisted-by tags altogether.
> >>
> >> The question about enforcement remains.
> >
> > It's not possible to enforce it. People can deny it if the tag is missing
> > and you confront them and even though the submission has many signs of being
> > obviously LLM, there is no definite proof. We've seen (likely, as there's no
> > proof!) that happen in mm.
> >
> > Such situation then penalizes those who disclose so obviously they won't. We
> > should drop the tag and instead think how we can empower maintainers to be
> > able to use their own judgment and deprioritize dealing with what they
> > perceive as LLM slop, without fearing consequences of not being properly
> > responsible etc, and not rely on any non-enforceable tags for that.
>
> +1
>
> I see no benefits of enforcing the tag for these exact reasons. Every
> LLM slop will miss the tag. OTOH, seeing reasonable contribution with
> the tag makes my spider-senses tingling and causing unnecessary
> prejudice. If the contribution is reasonable, how does the tag
> information helps me? I trust (or not) the person, regardless what tool
> they use.
>
> And if we think about any future possible copyright issues with LLM
> contributions (like if there is ever a ruling that model trained on BSD
> data creates BSD-derivative work etc), does that tag anyhow solve it?
> Like if that ruling appear we will go through the history and revert the
> commits?

Why would you take information _away_ from maintainers?

You're making every LLM 'accusation' a risk for a maintainer because you might
get the 'how dare you accuse me of using an LLM rah rah rah' response.

Why not eliminate that in at least some cases?

I continue to be baffled at people's opposition adding a single line to emails,
or a single little comment on the end of it.

I do agree with Vlasta that we need to have a clearer way to just say no (TM) if
we strongly suspect an LLM.

I had a very unpleasant experience dealing with blowback for doing that in a
_very_ blatant case and I'd rather not repeat it if it's at all possible.

>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Thanks, Lorenzo