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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 02/07/2026 10:44, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
> On 7/2/26 10:12, Jori Koolstra wrote:
>> Ah, I still reigniting this discussion again :)
>>
>> What about a combination of what David and Jeff say? The whole point
>> seems to me that the salient information is not that an LLM was used (or
>> are we going to tag Sashiko as well or any other LLM-based code review
>> tool?), but what is was used to do. This information may be relevant for
>> how the review is approached. The latter should perhaps only be in the
>> cover letter and then we can drop the assisted-by tags altogether.
>>
>> The question about enforcement remains.
> 
> It's not possible to enforce it. People can deny it if the tag is missing
> and you confront them and even though the submission has many signs of being
> obviously LLM, there is no definite proof. We've seen (likely, as there's no
> proof!) that happen in mm.
> 
> Such situation then penalizes those who disclose so obviously they won't. We
> should drop the tag and instead think how we can empower maintainers to be
> able to use their own judgment and deprioritize dealing with what they
> perceive as LLM slop, without fearing consequences of not being properly
> responsible etc, and not rely on any non-enforceable tags for that.

+1

I see no benefits of enforcing the tag for these exact reasons. Every
LLM slop will miss the tag. OTOH, seeing reasonable contribution with
the tag makes my spider-senses tingling and causing unnecessary
prejudice. If the contribution is reasonable, how does the tag
information helps me? I trust (or not) the person, regardless what tool
they use.

And if we think about any future possible copyright issues with LLM
contributions (like if there is ever a ruling that model trained on BSD
data creates BSD-derivative work etc), does that tag anyhow solve it?
Like if that ruling appear we will go through the history and revert the
commits?

Best regards,
Krzysztof