"There is zero point in talking about AI slop. That's just plain stupid. Why? Because the AI slop people aren't going to document their patches as such. That's such an obvious truism that I don't understand why anybody even brings up AI slop. So stop this idiocy. The documentation is for good actors, and pretending anything else is pointless posturing."
"As I said in private elsewhere, I do not want any kernel development documentation to be some AI statement. We have enough people on both sides of the "sky is falling" and "it's going to revolutionize software engineering", I don't want some kernel development docs to take either stance. It's why I strongly want this to be that "just a tool" statement."
Documentation for kernel development should focus on guiding good actors and avoid becoming a venue for political stances about LLMs. Labeling or policing patches as AI-generated will not stop low-quality or malicious contributions because such actors will not self-identify. The problem of AI-produced low-quality output cannot be solved through documentation alone. Documentation should neither promote panic nor hype about LLMs, and a neutral position that treats LLMs as just another tool is the recommended approach for documentation policy in kernel development contexts.
Read at Theregister
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]