Re: [PATCH] [v3] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

[<dan.j.williams@intel.com>]

Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
[..]
> And it's not like I'm asking for much, I'm not asking you to rewrite the
> document, or take an entirely different approach, I'm just saying that we
> should highlight that :
> 
> 1. LLMs _allow you to send patches end-to-end without expertise_.
> 
> 2. As a result, even though the community (rightly) strongly disapproves of
>    blanket dismissals of series, if we suspect AI slop [I think it's useful
>    to actually use that term], maintains can reject it out of hand.
> 
> Point 2 is absolutely a new thing in my view.

I worry what this sentiment does to the health of the project. Is
"hunting for slop" really what we want to be doing? When the accusation
is false, what then?

If the goal of the wording change is to give cover and license for that
kind of activity, I have a hard time seeing that as good for the
project.

It has always been the case that problematic submitters put stress on
maintainer bandwidth. Having a name for one class of potential
maintainer stress in a process document does not advance the status quo.

A maintainer is trusted to maintain the code and have always been able
to give feedback of "I don't like it, leaves a bad taste", "I don't
trust it does what it claims", or "I don't trust you, $submitter, to be
able to maintain the implications of this proposal long term". That
feedback is not strictly technical, but it is more actionable than "this
is AI slop".