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 6C1B83568EA for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2025 20:38:08 +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=1755808688; cv=none; b=ZDanUF4YncSRStXrAsVsZgkrH7YvcGkZL1KuhD88lxVp/tXX4tDdjXgnCTBU0XrHrqa4Z41YDRqGHf8L3B9uPM2pwajIC2eXkQ2NAwLHyi1j6owrNyiyMwkr3SIbAnXfOauRyaLPvUYh2mqzjXjAg9tjMp993R02N4B2OvIbhe4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755808688; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gskXFy3QQVhZxXIXO6V9A/gnWJ9hyHePtJEd1XYa5jw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=PV2mvdnBfWQYErRmuQ+ECkmIZ57r0hgtvRRfjkyxzRs+3UUMCEgZluQ0KlnLkQtCO4LDngexcjmflHjWupRPQSbfai51ypDHzN6MWexFo6oGaASztP9cyPR54l4E7ABlLRH8BPgRpoJGHpdBnHJzA/RmJjGxaKSWj2xpv/OAh6Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=XXpDQg6w; 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="XXpDQg6w" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8B9FC4CEF4; Thu, 21 Aug 2025 20:38:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1755808688; bh=gskXFy3QQVhZxXIXO6V9A/gnWJ9hyHePtJEd1XYa5jw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=XXpDQg6wFy5L9w4jRcB3U5F/U8JLrBuOf3CGq5CotXzjsYbWozZR/1Q5mlYJ8QWUH HpPS15Ki/2FvLS8dMejkQgGBD9RC79bIzvySEcxVK1TjQDPaDMcUmFwkxqAGBavtnQ 67G4NZVdlov9PClCQ+dsZsVW65bx5ggPyQHKNU2Di4+S6O7FUJW1fMSYTMrCtTrvDj Wxo95i2qWcn/3viywiUg7Ci0UUpmeutIEAc0jcgKWBZ5M37pweQ7dsvitJknWvSTUs /mt8MomGMBpYz6QmzTRMoDRREd7YTwwzY4VjlUTiX6H8q2JC+81cNGRjtLlQ7LhXyf qDCOwd6xcP0Yw== Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 22:38:05 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , James Bottomley , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Annotating patches containing AI-assisted code In-Reply-To: <20250821122329.03c77178@foz.lan> Message-ID: References: <1npn33nq-713r-r502-p5op-q627pn5555oo@fhfr.pbz> <12ded49d-daa4-4199-927e-ce844f4cfe67@kernel.org> <9020e75d-361f-457f-9def-330d8964f431@paulmck-laptop> <20250818230729.106a8c48@foz.lan> <9383F8DB-CD38-40CC-B91D-7F98E8156C04@HansenPartnership.com> <4tacplepoih3wvejopmtkdg7ujtvwmufd5teiozk5im2jikn7a@jdbou6kwindl> <20250821122329.03c77178@foz.lan> 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 On Thu, 21 Aug 2025, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > In any case (either AI, human or hybrid AI/human), if the code has issues, > we may need to revert it. > > On other words, AI doesn't radically changes it: at the end, all remains > the same. The code is rarely 1:1 copy-pasted, both by humans and AI. Transformations are needed, you need to glue individual pieces together, adapt for a different version of API, yada yada yada. When done by human, there is some hope that the human does understand what he/she is doing in the process, and you can reach out to them for human-to-human discussion about the code. With AI-generated code, there might be no such human to talk to who understands what the code does and why. And one of the points why I originally brought this up is that I believe we need either (a) be able to take the informed decision/risk by applying a patch we know has been written by AI, or (b) be able to outright reject it on that basis (e.g. if it's too complicated). -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs