Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove the requirement for LLM attribution

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 7/3/26 18:32, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 02:12:40PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 09:05:58AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>>
>> I personally think 1-2 are the only relevant cases.
>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I raised something similar as reply to Christian's RFC [1], where I said
>>> that for me the information *how* it was used is much more important:
>>>
>>> "
>>> Assisted-by: LLM # translate commit message
>>> Assisted-by: LLM # generate some test cases
>>> Assisted-by: LLM # cleanup logic
>>> Assisted-by: LLM # everything and I have no clue what any in here does
>>> "
>>
>> Yup, and we don't need complicated rules for that just 'document what you used
>> it for and give a sense of how much'.
>>
>> It's fuzzy but useful.
>>
>>>
>>> That tag is it stands is pretty useless, really.
>>
>> Not to go over it all again but I disagree, even as it stands, it allows us to
>> engage in conversation about the LLM usage if admitted, and to point those who
>> are misbehaving at the rules if not.
>>
>> And it is a clear way to get the boolean 'is this person saying they used an
>> LLM'.
>>
>> But I agree with you it'd be MUCH more useful if we did the above.
>>
>> I wonder if we could get consensus on adding a section to the doc saying that
>> it'd be _useful_ to add a comment explaining _what_ you did, and explaining the
>> concept with some examples?
> 
> I'd support a patch that replaces
> 
> Assisted-by: Claude:claude-3-opus coccinelle sparse
> 
> with
> 
> Assisted-by: LLM # generate some test cases
> 
> and rewrites the Attribution section of
> Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst accordingly.
> 
> I think most people in this mail thread have expressed that how
> generative AI was used is the most important information, and several
> people (including myself) have expressed a desire to stop the free
> advertising. Unless I missed something, I don't think anyone has
> expressed an interest in keeping the agent name and model.

Yes, that's something I would enjoy seeing. Who reading along has a problem with
that? (assuming that the tag must stay)

-- 
Cheers,

David