From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (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 1B86920ED for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2025 02:07:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765159679; cv=none; b=dEjPxaRBN0N9xoPiUrJPl7RBWRqMV7guSyhkQKcs21EG0Xg8mQWM2kp38DaLyeyMIxBlz0WWPCge9JbQcMHvsauw3PR6FPy1Uq2o3OoYrmgd66VVIvQMmTAYxXOfD17EeyhInTz2Cpml7kbK3X14ZJ6xaS1pVG1FOxpOHy4QuIM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765159679; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OC0fda0nj8LMoN59Y2lkF/CgO+SH7fpajDwz7n3k01Q=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=DRDVoi/bef4xx/0rBVG4W+zd5MvJC46TyBD7IuA9IMeSZix+5VFrG69TvNiNP8m5il7sbWfgFewMpnH8SHxLjb/Rz6LGatCMQNKVBscwEJAwBPHV1e6tObOQ9eWOPfN+v+yfi70TX9Xj7jfS0uQUHZ638PdnY66qmFFWnV4A4Js= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=R6atph+b; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="R6atph+b" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 7537D4040B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1765159162; bh=qmh1sc8+9Bh7jmTgAvqdMGfzZUWhTQTvkF/HnXqmKcI=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=R6atph+bVPueqvyAoF5tMnsoLQflfxrZSnQ1SwClhAuVjxfjoxcxpxAr5GPUkaVTe fJp9u71jYmt43HB1/pnZyXtmJrU4Tzw38ght0nIBsaCsbkoLUZ2xGnMk4TLNhjC1Yn BPCzAK2m8QDQsfRRJh/XPxOoXvY9LgqCx8tJWR5CePkoLLQn0OGxH3+0I7KQzS3xZs w2YTfcMmcgOo6ECN46euCVHJY/AxSH8QdBHpH373elT78rTCF1CxbQIYaii848A/5h F/wix7G74LtptnyxKLzfXn7lrLQ56qkeWa5YU6sK3/yQVnXegDxUXwdseQRASgXt/c d41ocaA+liiDg== Received: from localhost (mdns.lwn.net [45.79.72.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7537D4040B; Mon, 8 Dec 2025 01:59:21 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: "H. Peter Anvin" , Sasha Levin , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] The role of AI and LLMs in the kernel process In-Reply-To: <4BDD9351-E58A-4951-9953-00F1E9F24FB4@zytor.com> References: <4BDD9351-E58A-4951-9953-00F1E9F24FB4@zytor.com> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2025 18:59:19 -0700 Message-ID: <87zf7tg2dk.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain "H. Peter Anvin" writes: > I contend there is a huge difference between *code* and > descriptions/documentation/... > > Although git is an enormous help, it is still far harder to unwind > code than the auxiliary stuff. > > AI bug reports? We have gotten robot bug reports for > decades. Translation tool? Not a problem. Using AI to get ideas? Not > really different than reading out of a textbook > > However, *code* taken out of an AI seems to me that it would have to > be presumed plagiarized. Furthermore, it is very often wrong in both > subtle and blatant ways. As you might imagine, I'm not fully on board with that. Code is assumed plagiarized, but text is not? Subtly wrong documentation is OK? I think our documentation requires just as much care as our code does. jon