Re: [PATCH RFC] coding-assistants: simplify attribution

On 7/1/26 5:54 PM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> I remain very confused by our coding assistant contribution guidelines.
> I'm going to be a bit polemic now but this seriously in good faith.
> 
> Why precisely do we require all this detailed information about what
> specific coding assistant was used?
> 
> I find it very irritating that our git history has effectively started
> to function a bit like a free advertising platform for a bunch of AI
> companies and their proprietary agents and models.
> 
> And it reamins unclear to me what exactly we do get out of this detailed
> information: Do we want to run statistical analysis on what agent and
> model is used the most and publish that on LWN at some point?
> 
> I acknowledge that my stance is even more radical: imho we would just
> stop it with any disclosure requirements completely.
Sorry to drop in as a relatively uninformed person, but it seems like 
the following mails would be relevant for that discussion:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/T/

If LLM code were no longer committed to the kernel, which wouldn't 
exclude using an LLM to pinpoint problem spots and security bugs as long 
as it's not used to produce the fix itself, then the commits also would 
no longer need an attribution.

Regards,

Ellie