r/linux • u/MMORPGDev • 19h ago

Development Linux Kernel Developers Plan To Remove "Assisted-By" Tag Requirement For AI/LLM Usage

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-Dropping-Assisted-By-Req
510 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

374 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/halfwiteximus 17h ago

If I see something was assisted by "Gemini 3.8 Flash" I'm going to trust it less than one assisted by "Opus 5.5" or similar. Since there's such a wide capability gap, which one was used does matter.

9

u/PixelatedGiant 17h ago

I'd say you should be just as suspicious of any code regardless of who or what wrote it. You also shouldn't expect people to have knowledge of how these models behave and have it color their perception of the code. The code should stand on its own. If anything I see what you just said as a negative and yet another reason to remove these tags.

0

u/halfwiteximus 16h ago

That's a fair point. I suppose my point is that there's a practical difference between a contribution from "Joe Schmoe" and "Linus Torvalds". Personally I'd see a similar difference between different models. As you say though, we maybe shouldn't treat those contributions different, and instead evaluate on more objective factors like how critical the patch is, what it actually changed, and then we can use that to triage code review.

1

u/Business_Reindeer910 13h ago

i think you covered it at the beginning.

:> suppose my point is that there's a practical difference between a contribution from "Joe Schmoe" and "Linus Torvalds".

There still is and this marker's effect hasn't changed.

1

u/Mr_s3rius 15h ago

A lot of the time there isn't just one model involved.

In Claude, I tend to lay out plans with Opus and Sonnet to execute it. But that cheaper model has the ability to forward tricky questions to a more expensive model again. And then code review is run by yet a different agent. So that's two, three different models.

1

u/ForDaLulz 12h ago

Yeah this exactly. I also often use different models to review stuff to get different perspectives (just as with different developers). The detailed tagging is just bloat without any real purpose imo

-1

u/ILikeBumblebees 15h ago

If I see something was assisted by "Gemini 3.8 Flash" I'm going to trust it less than one assisted by "Opus 5.5" or similar.

What on earth does trust have to do with evaluating code submissions for validity?

3

u/halfwiteximus 15h ago

Code can be technically correct and poorly written. As I stated elsewhere, I'm more likely to believe that a contribution from Linus Torvalds or a well-known and respected kernel developer doesn't contain some latent flaw than a contribution from Joe Schmoe. Now obviously we'd ideally review both, but reviews aren't perfect and maintainers don't have infinite time.

1

u/ILikeBumblebees 10h ago

Code can be technically correct and poorly written.

Right. But what does that have to do with trusting anything or anyone? Whether it is functionally correct, performant, well-written, readable, etc. are all measurable qualities of the code itself. There is no aspect of evaluating code that should ever be determined or even influenced by trust.

As I stated elsewhere, I'm more likely to believe that a contribution from Linus Torvalds or a well-known and respected kernel developer doesn't contain some latent flaw than a contribution from Joe Schmoe.

Right, but what does having that belief have to do with anything, apart from perhaps influencing betting odds if you've got a pool going on whose code will pass review?

Are you arguing that submissions from certain contributors should be exempted from testing or code review merely on account of their reputation?

Now obviously we'd ideally review both, but reviews aren't perfect and maintainers don't have infinite time.

Whatever review process is in use, however perfect or imperfect, is something that should be expected to be applied to all submissions equivalently. Maintainers' limited time should be a factor in prioritization and deciding release schedules, but no project, especially one as important as the kernel, should ever resolve resource pressure by skimping on the work itself and failing to apply due scrutiny to submissions.

1

u/halfwiteximus 9h ago

I'll concede, and note that my last sentence was poorly stated. Very obviously I'm not stating that some contributions should just be waved through.

I'd point out that even if we can objectively verify that all code contributions are correct, we're trusting maintainers to do that verification correctly and completely. Trust is never removed from the process, it just moves up a step.