> And it's not like I'm asking for much, I'm not asking you to rewrite the
> document, or take an entirely different approach, I'm just saying that we
> should highlight that :
>
> 1. LLMs _allow you to send patches end-to-end without expertise_.
As somebody who reviews a lot of networking patches, i already see
lots of human generated patches without expertise. So LLM might
increase the volume of such patches, but the concept itself is not
new, and does not require LLMs.
> 2. As a result, even though the community (rightly) strongly disapproves of
> blanket dismissals of series, if we suspect AI slop [I think it's useful
> to actually use that term], maintains can reject it out of hand.
And i do blanket dismiss all but one such patch from an author, and i
try to teach that author how to get that one patch into shape, in the
hope you can learn the processes and apply it to their other
patches. Sometimes the effort works, and you get a new developers
joining the community, sometimes it is a lost cause, and they go away
after having their patches repeatedly rejected.
So i don't think using LLMs makes a difference here. I've seen the
same issue with blindly fixing checkpatch warning, sparse warning,
other static analysis tool warnings. I just see LLMs are another such
tool.
> Point 2 is absolutely a new thing in my view.
And i would disagree with this statement, it is not new, it already
happens.
Andrew
