From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 203CE2253FC for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 15:25:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755617140; cv=none; b=APeNTbewmktwVc0L/FUD11K1mxjNKqnZ/di3XU/lN4cS9uCJLVt7mDjvNt5U2fM+bpyUk3zjYO+EzvlQ5PW9tJrbcw0EZ+G3MiZiqFKmMK/IsqO67LtIJAOHfx9znPMSfljDoHkqID0gWoRZ60BGiUAMnxCB/O6497hgdmvKj00= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755617140; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XVlry02Sy+iE1y8lQ/A7ccD7z90WogZ9YWXg58dzWaU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=dTThWVKSXYeH4s5nhIfV8TtXauNhKhHkbf39DC10W++hCawNHxoArGmopdkIxFbhpF8nG3aq0DXDqMPtuvW56+WsQwX455faE7SwxlaqsENB021S/4SjM0j5Pv3YjBaBaAy0Z9cc1ALHk4doCPlF7NIP3YE6PpmKjWgsZ8qqBJY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=JrwhShd9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="JrwhShd9" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A265BC4CEF4; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 15:25:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1755617139; bh=XVlry02Sy+iE1y8lQ/A7ccD7z90WogZ9YWXg58dzWaU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=JrwhShd9yBilShNrlqx8J0LB2zkN4uz5WF96LjFeLCnJnWxY21V0XZ6jHrNjJLRkr fRUrVO7OyFxrvllwK7BuuiEyLU8LpoRbKZDnCMO1Wiw8otaYRZUSzfJvPZtaQitzAL I5vq3lhfwVUpD8xv8ZxwJdp9zUqbWmYb2Ni3oSkM+Dob+WSMb5vbBqQIHCK/2uYjiJ Cbt9ipykZcmaIz48bVrajWmUp5/litQgLnmFawHF5f+yobkpX1PTb3kHB63ATZMehZ Lmg8thIvLg26CbSs1uxKEBi3IbLF/p66N40Gu48/GOU7Kgm7KYO21U+nTc8EXRr7Wl V7UNk1VSIm9gQ== Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4805FCE0853; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 08:25:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 08:25:39 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Luis Chamberlain , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Sasha Levin , Jiri Kosina , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Annotating patches containing AI-assisted code Message-ID: <4dae36f1-b737-4ea0-b3d5-6a7784967578@paulmck-laptop> Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org References: <1npn33nq-713r-r502-p5op-q627pn5555oo@fhfr.pbz> <12ded49d-daa4-4199-927e-ce844f4cfe67@kernel.org> <20250818232332.0701fea2@foz.lan> 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250818232332.0701fea2@foz.lan> On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 11:23:32PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Mon, 11 Aug 2025 15:51:48 -0700 > "Paul E. McKenney" escreveu: > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 03:11:47PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 02:46:11PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > depending on how that AI was > > > > trained, those using that AI's output might have some difficulty meeting > > > > the requirements of the second portion of clause (a) of Developer's > > > > Certificate of Origin (DCO) 1.1: "I have the right to submit it under > > > > the open source license indicated in the file". > > > > > > If the argument is that cetain LLM generated code cannot be used for code under > > > the DCO, then: > > > > > > a) isn't this debatable? Do we want to itemize a safe list for AI models > > > which we think are safe to adopt for AI generated code? > > > > For my own work, I will continue to avoid use of AI-generated artifacts > > for open-source software projects unless and until some of the more > > consequential "debates" are resolved favorably. > > > > > b) seems kind of too late > > > > Why? > > > > > c) If something like the Generated-by tag is used, and we trust it, then > > > if we do want to side against merging AI generated code, that's perhaps our > > > only chance at blocking that type of code. Its however not bullet proof. > > > > Nothing is bullet proof. ;-) > > Let's face reality: before AI generation, more than one time I > received completely identical patches from different developers > with exactly the same content. Sometimes, even the descriptions > were similar. I got one or twice the same description even. But of course. And in at least some jurisdictions, one exception to copyright is when there is only one way to express a given concept. > Granted, those are bug fixes for obvious fixes (usually one liners), but > the point is: there are certain software patterns that are so common > that there are lots of developers around the globe whose are familiar > with. This is not different from a AI: if one asks it to write a DPS code > in some language (C, C++, Python, you name it), I bet the code will be > at least 90% similar to any other code you or anyone else would write. > > The rationale is that we're all trained directly or indirectly > (including AI) with the same textbook algorithms or from someone > that used such textbooks. That may be true, but we should expect copyright law to continue to be vigorously enforced from time to time. Yes, I believe that the Linux kernel community is a great group of people, but there is neverthelss no shortage of people who would be happy to take legal action against us if they thought doing so might benefit them. > I can't see AI making it any better or worse from what we already > have. My assumption is that any time I ask an AI a question, neither the question nor the answer is in any way private to me. In contrast, as far as I know, my own thoughts are private to me. Yes, yes, give or take facial expression, body language, pheromones, and similar, but I do not believe even the best experts are going to deduce my technical innovations from such clues. Naive of me, perhaps, but that is my firm belief. ;-) That difference is highly nontrivial, and could quite possibly make things far worse for us. Thanx, Paul