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

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 12:15:43PM +0200, Jori Koolstra wrote:
>
> I haven't really seen anyone opposed the following I wrote earlier:
>
> - it's more relevant to know how an LLM was used than that it was used (and the
>   tag is just a quick indication of this)
> - advertising for particular corporations does not really serve any purpose to
>   the community, so just say "LLM"
> - the tags may be used to prevent arguing
> - the requirement to be open about LLM use (whether by tags or whatever) makes
>   it easier for maintainers (if they feel the need) to de-prioritize patches
>   by someone unwilling to abide by these rules whenever the maintainer perceives
>   or suspects prior undeclared LLM use. This prevents an asymmetrical situation
>   of LLM slop being produced much faster that what can be reviewed.

Yup completely agree.

I just want to get something merged rather than just talk :) and so to avoid any
_possible_ argument 'keep it like it is but add a comment' is a much, much
easier sell to everybody.

Then we can follow up with anything else one we get _something useful merged_ :)

>
> Perhaps the last point is more controversial.

Not in my opinion. We're only at the beginning of this horror show and I think
far stronger measures will eventually be needed (e.g. newcomes will have to
build trust first, which sucks, but it may be the only practical solution).

>
> I would really like to adept the systemd policy text.[1] If I have time later today
> I'll try to write something up... although maybe it is too ambitious :)
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20260702-bahnen-ertappen-verspannungen-0eaaf1e3f5af@brauner/

:)

Cheers, Lorenzo