On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 01:20:54PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:10:51 +0100 > Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > I guess a statement in submitting-patches.rst would suffice, or should it > > > > be a separate standalone document? > > > > > > If it's separate I think it needs to have a link from submitting-patches.rst > > > to get people to read it. > > > > Absolutely agree. > > Sorry for cropping your response about submitting patches, but honestly, I > think it may get more visibility there than in a separate doc. That's > because submitting-patches is one of the most popular documents kernel devs > reference to people submitting patches! No worries! :) Yeah to be clear - I think this should be a link, very heavily highlighted. Or we could summarise (using AI? Kidding ;) what the document states there, with a link for details. > > Of course, adding a link as suggested above may fix that too. > > > > > > > > > To summarise some other things that came up between the threads: > > > a) I think there should be a standard syntax for stating it is > > > AI written; I'd suggested using a new tag, but others were > > > arguing on the side of reusing existing tags, which seems OK > > > if it is done in a standard way and doesn't confuse existing tools. > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > b) There's a whole spectrum of: > > > i) AI wrote the whole patch based on a vague requirement > > > ii) AI is in the editor and tab completes stuff > > > iii) AI suggests fixes/changes > > > which do you care about? > > > > I think any AI involvment that results in _changes to the code_ should > > require the tag. > > I disagree with this. As I reply, I don't think if you have AI finishing > your for loops and such requires disclosure. As I believe that may soon be > the norm of most folks and then we may get AI storms. This is actually a very good point. This is going to be tricky, because hallucination is such a serious concern, and even this kind of autocomplete would make me want to have a closer look. > > And then, if you have people saying "I don't want any AI patches", does > that mean those that use AI for templates and such will now be forbidden > from submitting to those subsystems? I think that's something we can potentially get more fine-grained on in future. > > I would say if AI creates any algorithm for you then it must be disclosed. I think what consitutes an 'algorithm' is very nebulous and you're likely to get people messing around on the definition of this. I think rather we could have an 'unless' list like: Unless: - It's whitespace only, - You used autocomplete features for for loops etc. AND you have checked that no hallucination has occurred. The perennial problem with LLMs is that they can hallucinate in _very_ subtle ways that can be hard for humans to pick up on. But we also have to be practical so I agree, we might end up with the tags being noise if we don't make sensible exceptions (whether we like it or not). > > > > > > > > > c) But then once you get stuff suggesting fixes/changes people were > > > wondering if you should specify other non-AI tools as well. > > > That might help reviewers who get bombed by a million patches > > > from some conventional tool. > > I should add that non-AI tools should always come with a disclaimer that > they were used. For the most part, most submissions that use non-AI tooling > has done this. I just don't think we ever made any formal policy about it. Yeah I've noticed this too, would be nice to standardise though. Cheers, Lorenzo
