On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 11:17:23AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> Just a "Patch generated with AI" under the --- cut off line would be
> fine.

> We had a patch in staging from AI which "copy and pasted" from a spec
> that it had hallucinated.  The language in the commit message is so
> smooth and confident that it took a re-read to see that it's totally
> nonsense.  A lot of the patches in staging are from newbies and
> sometimes kids and I believe the person who sent the  AI assisted
> patch did it with good intentions.  But, ugh, I don't want to deal
> with that.

I think the suggestion from an earlier thread that people should say
what the AI they were using (as they tend to for static checkers and
so on) was good - that's useful for both noticing tools that work well
and tracking things down if we notice a pattern of errors with some
tool.