Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove the requirement for LLM attribution

["Theodore Tso" <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 09:30:28AM -0500, Greg KH wrote:
> > So clarifying there that a "Assisted-by: LLM" is also good enough would make
> > sense if we agree on that.
> 
> If we all agree on that, I'm saying that _I_ don't care, but others
> might.

I agree that requiring the model name is not a good idea, because some
developers might be using unreleased products where the name itself
might not be public.  So allowing the version number of the LLM to be
elided would be a good change.

I'll also note that it's starting to be the case where tool is
actually quite relevant.  So it's not just about the LLM Model, but
whether you're using Codex, Claude Code, OpenCode, or Shahiko.  You
can use the tool or the harness with different models.

So whether the tag is:

Assisted-By: OpenCode:Gemini 3.5 Pro
Assisted-By: Claude Code
Assisted-By: LLM

I'd be fine with reviewing patches with any of the above.  However, to
me that's actually not the most interesting part.  See below....

> For me, the info after "Assisted-by:" doesn't matter, it's the first
> part.

For me, what I care most about is *how* the LLM was used.  For
example, if someone just used the output of Sashiko to fix a problem
in their commit, that's one kind of "Assisted-by".  If Sahsiko
identifies a pre-existing bug, and the developer addes a patch to the
patch series, or creates a new patch series, that's a different kind
of "Assisted-by".  A third kind of "Assisted-by" might include asking
the LLM to create a Coccinelle semantic patches (because I'm not smart
enough to create semantic patches).

And of course, all of this is quite different from the stereotypical
"vibe coding" where the LLM generates thousands of lines of code which
the human doesn't understand before sending the pull request.  :-)

So for me, adding something after a #-sign comment explaning how the
LLM was used would be very useful.

> > My kids should clean up their room; doesn't work.
> 
> But, if you notice that your kids didn't clean up their room, and you
> had told them to, you can then talk to them about doing it properly
> based on what they are supposed to be doing.

Another metaphor might be that people shouldn't try to evade paying
their taxes; merely passing a law saying they have to file correct tax
returns doesn't guarantee this.  But it was specifically the law
against tax evasion is how US Law Enforcement arrested the Chicago mob
boss Al Capone.

Just because some people might lie doesn't mean that we shouldn't
bother to ask everyone to fill out tax returns.

Cheers,

						- Ted