Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Annotating patches containing AI-assisted code

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 03:45:54PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On August 11, 2025 3:12:25 PM PDT, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 02:57:30PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 02:46:11PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 10:31:27AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> > > On 05/08/2025 19:50, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> > > With AI you do not have to even write it. It will hallucinate, create
> >> > > some sort of C code and you just send it. No need to compile it even!
> >> > 
> >> > Completely agreed, and furthermore, 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".
> >> 
> >> Should the rules be:
> >> 
> >> 1) No submissions directly from an AI agent. The From: line must
> >> always refer to a human.
> >> 
> >> 2) The human on the From: line takes full responsibilty for the
> >> contents of the patch. If it is garbage, or broken in some way
> >> there's no fall back on the "but AI wrote that bit".
> >
> >Another option is "The AI was trained only on input having a compatible
> >license."  Which, to your point, would to the best of my knowledge cut
> >out all of the popular and easily available AIs.
> >
> >There might well be less restrictive conditions on the AI training data,
> >but I am not qualified to evaluate such conditions, let alone construct
> >them.
> 
> I think we need legal advice on this, but I think this is a *really*
> important issue. It could end up being a very ugly mess otherwise.

Indeed, one of the reasonsss that I am not qualified is that I am
no lawyer.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul