Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Other LLM-related topics - tags, newcomers, etc

On 26/07/17 07:57AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-07-16 at 16:23 -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> > On 26/07/16 12:36PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > > Sasha Levin <[email protected]> writes:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 09:09:27AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > > > > The use of LLMs in the development process appears to be a
> > > > > clear theme for the upcoming summit.  On top of what others
> > > > > have already suggested, I think we may want to consider these
> > > > > questions:
> > > > > 
> > > > > - Do we want to continue naming specific LLMs in the Assisted-
> > > > > by tags, or  put something more generic?  I *think* that this
> > > > > thread:
> > > > > 
> > > > >   
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > > > > 
> > > > >  reached a consensus that "Assisted-by: LLM" was better than
> > > > > what we require now, but it might be good to ratify that in
> > > > > this setting.
> > > > 
> > > > So originally I've added the full name of the tool and LLM
> > > > because there was interest in a later audit of the tools to
> > > > determine how useful (or useless) some of the tools are.
> > > > 
> > > > If those folks aren't interested in doing so anymore, then sure -
> > > > we can drop it.
> > > > 
> > > > But... I find it difficult to see the point of having the tag if
> > > > we do that.
> > > 
> > > Folks like Greg have, in the recent past, said that it is useful
> > > even without specific product-name information:
> > > 
> > >  
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/2026070227-payroll-eradicate-8f66@gregkh/
> > > 
> > 
> > There are a few classes of LLM users, but as more and more people are
> > using LLM, the usefulness of this tag is converging on zero.
> 
> It's not just about whether you find it useful, it's also about whether
> it has utility to the project history.  Remember the purpose of the
> original signed-off-by tag was to track copyright origin in case of
> another SCO like allegation.  Given the current US Copyright position
> on generative AI
> 
> https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html
> 
> Whether AI is used or not affects the copyright status of the patch. 
> Therefore it is a fairly vital piece of information to preserve, even
> if the current advice changes over time.
> 

I think this supports the fact that the usefulness of the tag is going
to zero, at least in the current form.. but I'm not a lawyer.

On the mm side of thing, we have sashiko looking at things and getting
pointed to the reports, so that means all mm code is getting inspected
by an AI.  Adding a tag specifying that is useless noise, and certainly
does not affect the copyright according to your link.

Are you thinking that, at some point a specific AI might be ruled a
copyright violation and we will need to audit the commits?

Thanks,
Liam