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

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

On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 02:57:30PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 02:46:11PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 10:31:27AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 05/08/2025 19:50, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > With AI you do not have to even write it. It will hallucinate, create
> > > some sort of C code and you just send it. No need to compile it even!
> > 
> > Completely agreed, and furthermore, depending on how that AI was
> > trained, those using that AI's output might have some difficulty meeting
> > the requirements of the second portion of clause (a) of Developer's
> > Certificate of Origin (DCO) 1.1: "I have the right to submit it under
> > the open source license indicated in the file".
> 
> Should the rules be:
> 
> 1) No submissions directly from an AI agent. The From: line must
> always refer to a human.
> 
> 2) The human on the From: line takes full responsibilty for the
> contents of the patch. If it is garbage, or broken in some way
> there's no fall back on the "but AI wrote that bit".

Another option is "The AI was trained only on input having a compatible
license."  Which, to your point, would to the best of my knowledge cut
out all of the popular and easily available AIs.

There might well be less restrictive conditions on the AI training data,
but I am not qualified to evaluate such conditions, let alone construct
them.

							Thanx, Paul