From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 E98A97081A; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 16:15:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783008903; cv=none; b=Cf5zXf6EZ0S+pOiz01eySSHgeym+gzKIyrLiuLgEjOGYj/LbFTjG6FzrLVtXla7jcsR8pNGbxHWdMktLhyQS4sTuHQH7OgarGgHEK3xbCcuQKjhgHiMKetVjx0eYUtuZ71N8UoDcqR+38b/7CPK9xG82b+azIvPi/VvB1fqp3fI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783008903; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/BDPM0tAszUnqEP6pnUm7lcXYYLlaXAWZZba63wasvQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=i9g7Uv4T0YoZBtKkoJr9P2UM8f4Hnfl/hLx0OBM8UCYuZDjOkXqSApbmiF+HwOLUhVnyHZeRgnjghyZzRovHNQOv3OvkwHBIhInOZpi755PLFPjCSV31p7QkUZAwb6Qlf6lmslUZcQhuWi73SMcqYC5MZ04Yx6Djt/RH1y1p3CM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=QtLopmpo; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="QtLopmpo" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91E031F000E9; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 16:14:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1783008902; bh=/BDPM0tAszUnqEP6pnUm7lcXYYLlaXAWZZba63wasvQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=QtLopmpoTz1M5j2roqDdyyTxCOWzul0Z6Ubpf29X6w1KPaDU4hY7CQ0ddMRKsV0zc 5T6Khl8O27tBbSPEGKe8SRu0lRW2bOJMU5JDjfrRgmmlREDyA02Q8jbdiKMyu3b3xE BkdRWe1CpXvIDxJwkVCup4jxZOrZJB3azyDTjbio851VRxK5g0pfGs9zjlvcG+SarW IL835UEEOG3YmuPkRGbpE+92CvnlMCQ2JYPHOX+aqOS89qTRPCwZFQhD2RGZvyIxd0 bUhxfMxhxP5Qss1BnIAUerqXfMEzg5zY0QMcHI5WWbOV0s74hV+EsA12HqGA3XIIT3 QXGI+yFv8eTJg== Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 17:14:50 +0100 From: Lorenzo Stoakes To: Chuck Lever Cc: Jeff Layton , Linus Torvalds , Jonathan Corbet , Justin Stitt , Laurent Pinchart , Carlos Maiolino , Jakub Kicinski , Jori Koolstra , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Brian Foster , Christoph Hellwig , David Disseldorp , Mark Brown , Jani Nikula , Jens Axboe , David Hildenbrand , Vlastimil Babka , Christian Brauner , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove the requirement for LLM attribution Message-ID: References: <20260702-aidoc-v1-1-735572dfb995@kernel.org> <98e8d828-bcbd-4075-9b4c-dc1949647784@app.fastmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <98e8d828-bcbd-4075-9b4c-dc1949647784@app.fastmail.com> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 12:11:20PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2026, at 10:32 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > We've had this requirement in place in the Documentation for several > > months, but it's becoming clear that the signal to noise ratio from this > > is quite low. > > > > 1/ It's not universally followed. While many people do try to attribute > > the LLMs in good faith, not everyone does for various reasons. > > > > 2/ It basically serves as free advertising for proprietary LLM companies. > > > > 3/ It's not clear why we want to collect this info in the first place. > > > > Given that the data this provides is flawed at best and is being > > collected for a purpose that isn't clear, let's just kill the > > requirement for these tags from the kernel at large. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton > > --- > > Christian had proposed watering down the LLM attribution, but I think > > it's not productive to try and track this until we have a clearer sense > > of what we want to do with this information and how to make it more > > reliable. > > I agree that the current tagging system is flawed and almost useless > for real analysis -- self-reporting and a nebulous definition of what > "LLM was used" actually means are red flags for any data scientist. > > I don't have a stand on whether the tagging should be removed or fixed. > But today I ignore it (my 2-cents US) for these reasons. Oh no doubt they have highly dubious value as _data_. But they are useful for practical purposes :) i.e. 'ok I can talk about the LLM-ness here without it being quite so aggressive to do so because it's admitted'. And also political value in that 'here is how you are supposed to do it' vs. . I think there's definite practical human stuff that they provide sufficient for there to be value here, and I've found that in practice also :) (Though of course it's far far from resolving how we deal with the unattributed stuff, which remains an ongoing issue!) > > -- > Chuck Lever Cheers, Lorenzo