On 01/07/2026 17:54, Christian Brauner wrote: > I remain very confused by our coding assistant contribution guidelines. > I'm going to be a bit polemic now but this seriously in good faith. > > Why precisely do we require all this detailed information about what > specific coding assistant was used? > > I find it very irritating that our git history has effectively started > to function a bit like a free advertising platform for a bunch of AI > companies and their proprietary agents and models. > > And it reamins unclear to me what exactly we do get out of this detailed > information: Do we want to run statistical analysis on what agent and > model is used the most and publish that on LWN at some point? > > I acknowledge that my stance is even more radical: imho we would just > stop it with any disclosure requirements completely. It's useless imho. > We already see that other than core contributors most people don't care > and will just not disclose their usage of AI. I think this is entirely > pointless and worse it brings in undefined legal status as well. It's > not like recent events of pulling certain models from the face of the > earth have made this any less concerning. > > But fine, if we want to do this can we please just dumb it down to > > Assisted-by: LLM >
Yes, I agree. Useful information would be the model or trained data, e.g. to judge for any copyright issues, but I doubt anyone will ever provide such details. I also see little value to keep even the Assisted-by tag in the first place. I am interested in seeing named respectable tools in commit msg as reasons for doing this commit, e.g. I am fixing warning from Smatch so I mention Smatch. Sashiko fits this purpose as well. I have no interests to see "Claude" as reason of doing something. Best regards, Krzysztof
