On Thu, 2026-07-02 at 16:41 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 02 Jul 2026, Lorenzo Stoakes <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Say how much of your patch is LLM written, here are some examples". > > I think the question is, did you offload understanding to the LLM, or > just the creation of the patch. > > I think Assisted-by gets used as an indication of "the contributor might > not understand the contribution", and the patch might warrant extra > scrutiny. But that's not reliable by any means. > > Right or wrong, it used to be that the lack of polish in a patch was > used as a poor proxy for that, but now we get polished patches from > LLMs. >
Exactly. I think trying gatekeep patches based on whether they were LLM generated is a long-term losing battle. I prefer to focus on the value of the patches themselves and not get too wrapped up in how they were created. The original focus of this discussion was around Assisted-by: tags though. I'd like to circle back to that: Do we have enough consensus to drop the requirement for them? The patches that are most problematic are pretty universally unattributed anyway. -- Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
