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

[u/MMORPGDev]

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

[u/teleprint-me]

What purpose does a reference serve? If you need a detailed rationale for why citations matter, I recommend the APA Style Guide Reference which details the importance of why. You can find a copy on archive.org.

Most models are trained on proprietary datasets, even if theyre open weight, and the LLM predicts the entropy based on an autoregressive algorithm.  The output distribution is then sampled using a PRNG.

Setting a fixed seed alongside a lower temperature can reduce entropy and increase reproducibility.

You can - to a degree - replicate the outputs of the model if you know what inputs were used. The RL training creates a style bias which is easily identifiable and allows reproduction of the generated work.

This means the model will be biased toward the same predictions and will most likely reproduce similar enough outputs for the same algorithm even if the input and outputs slightly differ.

Providers are now baking in watermarking through the use of Googles SynthID which makes identification somewhat easier if the inference engine includes it which is likely if its a remote provider, even if its imperfect and error prone.

It matters because of licensing, liability, ownership, and reproduction and maintenance.

[u/PixelatedGiant → u/teleprint-me]

What purpose does a reference serve? If you need a detailed rationale for why citations matter, I recommend the APA Style Guide Reference which details the importance of why. You can find a copy on archive.org.

It's not really a reference. You lack most of the settings and even if you did manage to reproduce the output you still don't know the logic behind it. It's not the same as looking up a quote in a book and reading the surrounding text for context.

It matters because of licensing, liability, ownership, and reproduction and maintenance.

The human who committed the code should be responsible. The model is irrelevant, even more so if they tweaked it after getting a response.

[u/teleprint-me → u/PixelatedGiant]

  The human who committed the code should be responsible.

Basically you agree with me here. I literally said this already.

  It's not really a reference. You lack most of the settings and even if you did manage to reproduce the output you still don't know the logic behind it. It's not the same as looking up a quote in a book and reading the surrounding text for context.

Not true. APA requires LLM disclosure and has an adapted format for this already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiS3n6Gs5Wg

[u/PixelatedGiant → u/teleprint-me]

Sorry I worded that badly. Attributing knowledge of something to a different author serves two purposes:

1. The ability to refer back to sources for more knowledge. You can look up a quote and read the surrounding context or the entire book/paper/etc. itself.
2. Giving credit and showing that the idea is not yours.

LLMs clearly can't fulfill point #1. You go back to the LLM, punch in all the aforementioned settings and reproduce the same result. But no new knowledge is gained, there's nothing more there. Then we have authorship or giving credit. But as we both agree, the human has to take responsibility for that anyway so it can't fulfill point #2 either.

I'm not arguing that ADA is insufficient, I'm arguing that the whole idea of attributing authorship of code to an LLM serves no purpose.