From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0017.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D9573596B for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 14:36:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.40.44.17 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755009390; cv=none; b=aKA7O94jy2z1Uu8Kl36/nHtXuwe/fvvYFdIgLfhECwhx7+O0j52lov9MGKzO2upvENsme7hJxihxFKH6tnlB4o6tKM95Ah0Gx2ZlV4AW1CrG/KAm90ASmI/ghdqAeThqIe2pV995e8AB1OKSDbwbrhkq7+HEr/2nPmuvCxrD2aY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755009390; c=relaxed/simple; bh=20AHha75eyG9HHTJSxVhDhfgUbRXYrJEAH3d3cZwZgM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=RL51c81m99CLAm0kH1hu9ZytOjgWWh5+b6CCykyhLd92ru/rfV91kJXi3Pml3fQ1odc089OCZkSoLCKbDrHqnoim/lD3SCkv55ymAMAnN5aSchSolhFzbtzh95aEHaav/3t0HBO1drd0AGz4UoIVTjtlLtJWiX/RD4LyMh3BCVk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=goodmis.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.40.44.17 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=goodmis.org Received: from omf18.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05BC3C036E; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 14:36:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [HIDDEN] (Authenticated sender: rostedt@goodmis.org) by omf18.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 34EC72F; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 14:36:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 10:37:10 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: Dan Carpenter , Julia Lawall , "H. Peter Anvin" , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] The role of AI and LLMs in the kernel process Message-ID: <20250812103710.5faf83fc@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <37BCAD5A-07C4-4119-89C2-D3A45C24DE18@zytor.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.20.0git84 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Stat-Signature: em69yndbwuubk7mc97dunhhjhzm6r3jk X-Rspamd-Server: rspamout03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 34EC72F X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Session-ID: U2FsdGVkX1+NAnNlaU2RzMvyvG1KnOGjs+sDO907zqc= X-HE-Tag: 1755009385-673805 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX1+hc6w9kx3ftBb0DnndqSegYfwmfmqXSHSHKWmSKhInN7BvyMvYcaIndI0PKoWTxHjTIY7PhYPn8N4myS+B5hFOUL9ShVMIhOXv7/mDUyaPMLzdLBqo9S//CXVSmtG2KReHP04+N09ZhmypwOIBu6EX8s9U+k85p9+F9+/o7/02I7MXQzCaAZ+q5RzqUquHM+JtlaLibv/tAT0yDQLuN8c2L15ngDRmRd9lSWSHYDnweXi91uOr0ZMBRRDRVvsPFpCdbyTdt6QGe7qcO0JMJcrKzpDKACfOm8gGhl3RitZCmW0cBEcT1afFUknXcn5sKhD4mumtPACiVCiI9KFyNyxFuZhflkRIxr38Kx9ofCiIWQ== On Wed, 6 Aug 2025 20:30:25 +0100 Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > I feel like I have seen patches where people have generated AI > > documentation for locking. The problem is that if you ask AI to write > > something it always has a very confident answer but normally it's vague > > and slightly wrong. It takes no time to generate these patches but it > > takes a while to review them. > > The async relationship between effort to generate vs. effort to review is a > very serious aspect of all this. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS! My biggest concern with AI is that it may cause me to spend more time reviewing what it produced than it would take me to write the code myself. When I finally got people to help me with my work, my productivity dropped substantially, as I found I was spending more time helping them with tasks than it would have taken me to do it myself. But over time, that changed. This could be the same with AI if you had a model that would learn from what you taught it. But I suspect that AI generators will not be taking my input from what I find and I'll likely be telling the same AI generator how to fix the mistake over and over again. One thing I look forward to with AI is that it will likely help me debug my own code. I suspect it would be really good at reading my code and say "Hey Stupid! You forgot to free this value over here". And things like that. In other words, I trust AI to debug my code more than I can debug its code. What's that saying? "To debug code requires someone that is smarter than the one who wrote it." -- Steve