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

[Laurent Pinchart]

On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 11:21:28AM +0200, Ellie wrote:
> 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/e12330b9-c29e-45ca-9375-9e3d13426d85@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/

Your messages got completely ignored for a month and a half. Most
developers (including myself) don't read LKML due to the high traffic,
but I'm still surprised by the complete lack of reply. Maybe CC'ing the
workflows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mailing list would have helped ?

> 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.

That's absolutely right, and I would welcome that outcome. At this point
I don't think I'm talking for the majority though :-)

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart