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 B79B33C2F for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:02:21 +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=1754956941; cv=none; b=S2vvdoXz6gsOGe9RkFt2xy5OWwpM5aG0VEMB9wxTPwSmRnw7rvywBR8zK+aaRRit+1bfkcaDEx5dEUHDrzjzyHnymxG+Gusjkf52wajO9qEu44TnHilLgKlasfpBc/ekXsToktnA8A/JKcjv53UE8/lvc5ham5InDGBh9FXQwmw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754956941; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7J/jYtRTY7CsjlgXP+bZ542ZDXW+yO9bJ8JG97i/oqw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=X/3Nteczidk++ayaVPQ+zeAexEIN4dswts41f2QnekEMt6oQTdzJWkrb7ZVhwUwU+tK+HmVX94v5AlkFbg8xRtDxTYT54k3mekIJj938klgVPbcFciy6WFv3vySNCHWx/BZeJAanY/IVsDQ4ZJ1LYOt4ycUIjFcGJXiBt7SQpz8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=qHBmgbTD; 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="qHBmgbTD" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34867C4CEED; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:02:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1754956941; bh=7J/jYtRTY7CsjlgXP+bZ542ZDXW+yO9bJ8JG97i/oqw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=qHBmgbTDlMDa13WJ31t9YeSop9MTCX5N/kB9qT5fFiom3XunI2nryvn6vG+yQ7rp9 pO7DKwsRtALfQBABZZqMQuCON7rIOIZLcWP+/DVoMJh3fd3TvXUJM/x5ShFyKMoUQ8 QR0dqO208WCM+YttrQGrToA0+A/2JfZGBMk+vSJxnZUd7pKf+2jIBvliNR/yyZOS79 wEOS4DPUAnYptNqsBpPzbt6pBkr0Pvg5OzAX3orMD91RqDyxJ5r7Dg+bGOdtTT9HQW flVeOdPwg5LXqvBOdMo7apulPPYB1kQi7VNGhr/Ubi0Y0Lemx8FSuRbY+Vxz1F09b4 aSlRzUIlYxjLw== Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 17:02:19 -0700 From: Luis Chamberlain To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Sasha Levin , Jiri Kosina , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Annotating patches containing AI-assisted code Message-ID: References: <1npn33nq-713r-r502-p5op-q627pn5555oo@fhfr.pbz> <12ded49d-daa4-4199-927e-ce844f4cfe67@kernel.org> 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 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 04:42:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 04:22:21PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 03:51:48PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 03:11:47PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > c) If something like the Generated-by tag is used, and we trust it, then > > > > if we do want to side against merging AI generated code, that's perhaps our > > > > only chance at blocking that type of code. Its however not bullet proof. > > > > > > Nothing is bullet proof. ;-) > > > > Agreed, and I think the legal concerns over AI code use are just as weak. I > > just don't see it holidng up long term. > > That is quite possible. But on what are you basing that legal opinion? Its not a legal opinion. Its a personal opinion based on projections on growth, adoption, and personal risk analysis, and valuation for my own projects. At some point a project needs to take a positon on this, I had decide sooner for another project. > > My expectations are that eventually foundation AI models will simply state they > > use permissively licensed code for training, and be done with these concerns. > > > > Until then -- we just have wild speculations and I can't see any > > sensible case ending up in court wanting to avoid AI code in open source. > > I don't know about open source, but they tell me that related cases are > already in court. Yes, there was a recent decision that was favorable > to your position, which is great, but not necessarily either definitive > or final. Indeed, its a risk assessment in the end. Let us take an example. If one is using foundation models perhaps the ugliest position you could be in, is if you want to avoid GPL code on a non-GPL codebase. Since we don't have access to AI model training logistics, if we just work out of the code on Github the numbers I came up with was about 60% permissively licensed code, 25% GPL, 15% unclear. Give or take. If you're using copyleft code though, well, the project is already open. So what's the risk assessment? Well who and why would they go after your project? My risk assessment for my projet is low, and due the high empirical value I already see in leveraging AI code, I think its worth to embrace. Eventually I predict foundation models will just take a position to annotate where what code they train their models on and I suspect that will be permissively licensed code. By the time this happens most of the code we know written by humans will have been replaced already. Luis