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

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

On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 12:01:31PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 15:51:48 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > > a) isn't this debatable? Do we want to itemize a safe list for AI models
> > >    which we think are safe to adopt for AI generated code?  
> > 
> > For my own work, I will continue to avoid use of AI-generated artifacts
> > for open-source software projects unless and until some of the more
> > consequential "debates" are resolved favorably.
> 
> Does that include people who submit AI generated code to you?
> 
> This would also require AI use disclosures.

We have all avoided applying patches containing copyright violations
for a very long time.  And the possibilility of such violations is one
thing that seems to me to be adddressed by the DCO, which says (among
other things):

	I have the right to submit it under the open source license
	indicated in the file

Whether we like it or not, there are lawsuits in flight that could
potentially come to decisions that result in incorporation of AI-generated
code into the Linux kernel being copyright violations, which would
mean that the submitter does not have the right to submit.

And no, I have no way to identify AI-generated code.  If I mistakenly
incorporate some AI-generated code, I must rip it out and clean-room
construct some alternative.  Just as is already the case for other
potential legal issues.

							Thanx, Paul