Re: [RFC PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: (AI?) Tool disclosure tag

[Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 10:02:41PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 21:52:12 -0400
>Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> We'll be hitting these issues all over the place if we try and draw a
>> line... For example, with more advances autocompletion: where would you
>> draw the line between completing variable names and writing an entire
>> function based on a comment I've made?
>
>It's not much different than the "copyright" issue. How much code do I have
>to copy before I start infringing on someone's copyright?
>
>But if you start using tooling to come up with algorithms that you would
>not think of on your own, then you definitely should document it.
>
>Heck, I do it now even for algorithms I get from a book. I'll credit Knuth
>on stuff all the time. Same should happen if you get something from AI.
>
>It's one thing if it finds a bug or formatting issue, it's something
>completely different if it starts coming up with the algorithms for you.
>
>And even if it is trivial, if you had it do most of the work, you most
>definitely should disclose it.

Steve, I'm advocating for disclosing more, not less :)

I think that if we try to draw a line, we have no way of doing it
without it being vague and blurry (and quickly become outdated as tech
around us keeps moving).

Adding metadata for the relevant toolchain bits (let them be the
compiler I use, the kernel-specific tooling I ran on the patch, or the
LLM that was used to generate code) has benefits beyond just LLM
disclosure.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha