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 2D8F3288A2 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2025 19:19:30 +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=1755544771; cv=none; b=pYDmKioUfjGYRifJHoz/bvoAfdNqA3YarJcEkZ5FocCVu01oc1ET879V7lkzaDgnA72rYa6E1rcLligo+AsTPlOpuYOnfQ/b+Zrp8vgN8S9+ISHkc/PFNMDtVTDFsvgbI9pzczhhVH2fd1TBgmk7X5+KT057fa6X7JtcEIfXnRo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755544771; c=relaxed/simple; bh=L4KadCrxAJhkhsvbhg5ESLrQXN8h+dSvb+FevdSn7TU=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=DgZMPEtCyN3zmlZyGoYMM0d8UhpuVM6It7t+rYMgof7UDWH3Xe6Bxy+MaSQ+l9RyTszEWl5Mv+PYtdUgbp2Pyzf2eYAjI6mzaRDM3x5uwa77PmEWeDSFWBs6SXprSe7jmOvY6j45dZVZm3ZebJ7h/LBDJ29Ns04eYySqxwLUdJ8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=PLqUIlrB; 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="PLqUIlrB" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F57CC19425; Mon, 18 Aug 2025 19:19:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1755544770; bh=L4KadCrxAJhkhsvbhg5ESLrQXN8h+dSvb+FevdSn7TU=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=PLqUIlrBr4i/aHVDgznnp4+5oaSqBhiVskT0SaGtK4XY6cDXfhTFAWEqdkCsfL/YQ 87vYU8XMjL1p3LKYHZqxx3DY8r9rIBakoJbDPcEbRljIPYrbHmViXE9Jom3jgful7g axLhcwzGyEPeZ5WPpf+1jKD1XIasS+BD3Sbz8metuEPn6D5uinDdb+jGaJyIUnHZ2a 9pRRr7Ire6SgqLElgBAiIZ1VDVFu1FhAS/A8IKico4Q3co2COpp+zAWujoRavnmRZV 4k+a8Xng6RUSdhuku8R3Xq6agVm2bRAi+NmkywuTx3LjjkfNwSzeEzYHjaCmNFNGwC X2sGfgN7X0n0w== Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 21:19:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab cc: James Bottomley , paulmck@kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski , Sasha Levin , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Annotating patches containing AI-assisted code In-Reply-To: <20250818211354.697cb25a@foz.lan> Message-ID: <6o4sp81n-q5rr-6n92-o48o-4pr34s9n426q@xreary.bet> References: <1npn33nq-713r-r502-p5op-q627pn5555oo@fhfr.pbz> <12ded49d-daa4-4199-927e-ce844f4cfe67@kernel.org> <20250818211354.697cb25a@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 On Mon, 18 Aug 2025, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > On my tests with AI, humans need to modify it anyway. It reminds me > the (not so) good old code generators we had in the past: AI-generated > code, even when it works, it usually have unneeded steps and other > caveats that require human interaction to clean it up and fix. > > I got good results with AI for things like generating unit tests, but > once tests are generated, still 50%-60% of them fails because AI > did stupid things, like not counting whitespaces right, and even > sometimes forgetting parameters and arguments. > > From several aspects, it looks like contact a very junior intern > that knows a programming language and code really fast, but it has > no glue about how to generate a production quality level code. > > After dozens of interactions, the code can be used as the bases for > a senior professional to modify it and have something ready for > merging. > > The net result is that: > > 1. AI alone doesn't produce a ready-to-merge code; > 2. Lots of refinement requirements made by humans to shape the code > into something that actually works; > 3. During AI interaction, human has to intervene several times to > avoid AI to hallucinate. Sometimes, it also has to close the > chat and open again - or even use a different LLM model when > AI can't converge; > 4. At best scenario, human still needs to read the code and carefully > modify for it to make sense; at worse, it has to write its own > code, eventually using some suggestions from the AI hallucination. And the point is -- this all has now been much more easily available, and the increase pressure on maintainers is inevitable (pretty much everybody is now capable of submitting OK-ish looking code), so the submitter/maintainer ratio might become very unfair/unbalanced. Hence the need (I believe) to require proper annotation, even with all the legal aspect aside. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs