Re: LLM based rewrites
Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]> Mon, 09 Mar 2026 10:33:12 -0600
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.tech-board-discuss,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, 09 Mar 2026 08:31:03 -0700 > "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It is somewhat hard to see how that would constitute a "clean-room" >> rewrite. A clean-room rewrite entails two teams, one (the "clean" room) >> which must be certified to have never seen the code in question, and all >> communications between the two teams must be auditable. > > I was thinking the same. The argumentation that is being made (which I am trying to reproduce but am *not* advocating) is that "a clean-room rewrite is just one means to an end" and that, in this specific case, the code being rewritten was explicitly excluded from the context given to the bot (though that turns out not to entirely be the case). In theory, it only had the desired API and a set of tests available to it. The fact that every version of chardet was surely in its training data is not deemed to be relevant. jon