On 7/2/26 10:12, Jori Koolstra wrote: > Ah, I still reigniting this discussion again :) > > What about a combination of what David and Jeff say? The whole point > seems to me that the salient information is not that an LLM was used (or > are we going to tag Sashiko as well or any other LLM-based code review > tool?), but what is was used to do. This information may be relevant for > how the review is approached. The latter should perhaps only be in the > cover letter and then we can drop the assisted-by tags altogether. > > The question about enforcement remains.
It's not possible to enforce it. People can deny it if the tag is missing and you confront them and even though the submission has many signs of being obviously LLM, there is no definite proof. We've seen (likely, as there's no proof!) that happen in mm. Such situation then penalizes those who disclose so obviously they won't. We should drop the tag and instead think how we can empower maintainers to be able to use their own judgment and deprioritize dealing with what they perceive as LLM slop, without fearing consequences of not being properly responsible etc, and not rely on any non-enforceable tags for that.
