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 C15BD26AE4 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 02:49:12 +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=1754966952; cv=none; b=r80mhotmGH2oJ68fRwWFUJxHUuPHbCc1Tt8h1ajx8G/a6wmiprKhxpljVMQRHjGjreaNA0suascAxgaRD/6fYtyHeGn5qxOQ1/z9YyuAmi13tqJ70sJh6SFJD5diPq4zr6g5tet6VJP1feYLjxAzIHTUx6B3aAaq0sTn7JYylAI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754966952; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9INUe6HVpnCt1Ph+ydcU7CEdcXqEzCnyQiOZQlGQBKc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=h0LVbH447XmS/qvne6nPibf4LwytUwFHRqOwdoGP31oAifVPetbXgxNAy27ZedcepqonmKT9RkEH6ejVBlpauKutUxOZDjnQnQapEU37smqaWBCcR9uTfJYOcsgPkNQ1Bn/heX1F1B8RWnYkQj6/zTnseRCv3lLz2kPNn6hVKik= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=pMC4vhq+; 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="pMC4vhq+" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 392DAC4CEED; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 02:49:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1754966952; bh=9INUe6HVpnCt1Ph+ydcU7CEdcXqEzCnyQiOZQlGQBKc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=pMC4vhq+jNcS18GS3OBG1H/kR86CClGkXBUWsXf65VDFvPcRys4XRiP1RK/fjPZ77 DFgLCn3sy1S2Vq6Ev1rBm2SJeLd1+Uju6gNxSOohwFN7pG9dm8p9AKZVLTSVPp9zBo P9DcpiGOEd7yfeAcqv3TgS4cKAUsAqznbvNu9pjipjDdg1eFOoFXgtQMf3w63DURBA D+o7EfpaqStWVxA+hnV15qy1YC4QdjcsK2pKGu5zaEg53v7jDb52S4D8zgC8i/ni1Q 4ZsUGAH24kMmnUMSkgRkUecyAbmMq92LaReZW4s86yyWPpze2ielq49LtV8mgtiB4b UL9/1erjw6KkQ== Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D52AACE0965; Mon, 11 Aug 2025 19:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 19:49:11 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Luis Chamberlain Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Sasha Levin , Jiri Kosina , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Annotating patches containing AI-assisted code Message-ID: <59023286-9f7d-4942-9a86-1194d5a2b7ea@paulmck-laptop> Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org References: <1npn33nq-713r-r502-p5op-q627pn5555oo@fhfr.pbz> <12ded49d-daa4-4199-927e-ce844f4cfe67@kernel.org> 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: On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 05:02:19PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 04:42:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 04:22:21PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 03:51:48PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 03:11:47PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > > 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. ;-) > > > > > > Agreed, and I think the legal concerns over AI code use are just as weak. I > > > just don't see it holidng up long term. > > > > That is quite possible. But on what are you basing that legal opinion? > > Its not a legal opinion. Its a personal opinion based on projections on > growth, adoption, and personal risk analysis, and valuation for my own projects. > At some point a project needs to take a positon on this, I had decide > sooner for another project. Your project, your opinion, so questions asked. From me, anyway. But... > > > My expectations are that eventually foundation AI models will simply state they > > > use permissively licensed code for training, and be done with these concerns. > > > > > > Until then -- we just have wild speculations and I can't see any > > > sensible case ending up in court wanting to avoid AI code in open source. > > > > I don't know about open source, but they tell me that related cases are > > already in court. Yes, there was a recent decision that was favorable > > to your position, which is great, but not necessarily either definitive > > or final. > > Indeed, its a risk assessment in the end. > > Let us take an example. If one is using foundation models perhaps the > ugliest position you could be in, is if you want to avoid GPL code on a > non-GPL codebase. Since we don't have access to AI model training > logistics, if we just work out of the code on Github the numbers I > came up with was about 60% permissively licensed code, 25% GPL, 15% > unclear. Give or take. > > If you're using copyleft code though, well, the project is already open. > So what's the risk assessment? Well who and why would they go after your > project? My risk assessment for my projet is low, and due the high > empirical value I already see in leveraging AI code, I think its worth to > embrace. Sadly, there is precedent for people going after copyleft projects. > Eventually I predict foundation models will just take a position to > annotate where what code they train their models on and I suspect that > will be permissively licensed code. By the time this happens most of the > code we know written by humans will have been replaced already. Perhaps. But on the other hand, there is a lot of code still in use that was written by humans who have long since passed on. So I am not convinced that code replacement will happen all that quickly. Or maybe you are saying that it will be a good long time before AI projects implement the kind of traceability that we are discussing? Thanx, Paul