Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove the requirement for LLM attribution
"Theodore Tso" <[email protected]> Thu, 2 Jul 2026 22:57:42 -0400
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.workflows,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 12:46:19PM -0500, Andreas Dilger wrote: > It would make sense IMHO to address the ignorance in the most expedient manner, > namely by telling the *LLM itself* to add this tag when it generates the commit > message and/or reviews the code. > > This could be achieved by adding a statement in "AGENTS.md" in the root of the > source tree to this effect, or telling the agent to reference and follow rules > in Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst regarding the Assisted-by: tag. This presupposes a particular workflow where the developer allows the LLM to generate git commits. I don't do that. I'll ask the LLM to modify the code, but then I'll generally fix it up --- very often by hand because I can edit the sources than entering a prompt and waiting for the LLM to figure out how to make the change. I'll often run the test cases myself, since if it takes 24 hours of VM time, and 2 hours of wall clock time, I'm going to kick off the regression tests myself, and verify the test results. And I almost always write the commit description myself. So when I say, "Assisted-by" it literally is "Assisted by". It is not "vibe coded where the LLM generates thousands of lines of code that the human being doesn't understand before sending ta pull request." And that's probably why you'll see people asserting that LLM generated code can't possibly be accepted due to copyright reasons. There's a big difference between asking an LLM to modify already existing code to add a feature, or to fix a bug, and to vibe code a new OS from scratch. One is far less likely to be a copyright violation than the other. - Ted