@ljs this feels like the Rust on Linux folks were right all along...?

@ljs is this about https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-Kernel-AI-Docs-Rules ?

@ljs the bit where folks resigned, because compatibility measures were blocked by non-owning maintainers that had merge access

@ljs No decisions have been made - it *is* an RFC after all. Expect a lot of discussion, and I would be amazed if this doesn't end up as a prominent topic at the Maintainers Summit in December.

@ljs It *was* sent to linux-kernel.

In any case, it's a docs patch, I'll get my say in things :) More to the point, I don't take policy-relevant docs patches without a pretty clear sense of a consensus behind them.

@ljs @cxberger
https://distantprovince.by/posts/its-rude-to-show-ai-output-to-people/

@ljs Putting aside my general negative thoughts about LLMs, it seems premature to embed this sort of configuration in the kernel. These tools change how they work every couple of months at the minute - it's possible that whatever gets committed will be obsolete very quickly, possibly replaced with something built on Model Context Protocol (MCP), which in turn will probably be obsoleted before the end of the year.

@ptesarik @ljs @cxberger Hehe. Someone should tell that to kernel CoC people. Apparently taking AI hallucinations, signing them with your and sending that out to confuse people is okay... Signing-off patches based on those hallucinations is okay, too.

@ljs If it gets committed, is it time for a non-AI fork?
Lorenzux?
@corbet

@ptesarik @ljs @corbet Satanix

@vbabka @ptesarik @ljs @corbet this will make slop more difficult to recognize, right?

@piggo @ptesarik @ljs @corbet patch 4 includes some rules how usage of "agents" should be marked. I believe we should only focus on that initially + legal/licensing aspects. In fact this series seems to be sent shortly after a different RFC thread by someone else focusing on just that.

@vbabka @ptesarik @ljs @corbet can they adhere to it? Thinking of that post where some moron let an ai agent delete production database by accident

@piggo @ptesarik @ljs @corbet good point, such requirements should not be just in the part of documentation that's supposed to be processed and followed by the agents themselves, there should be clear rules for the people running them, that they should double check.

@ljs @vbabka @piggo @corbet
Oh, right, there seems to be some undue pressure! I'm almost getting Jia Tan flashbacks.

@ljs @vbabka @piggo @corbet Even if we take only the legal aspects into account, what if some jurisdictions decide that AI infringes on other people's copyright? Shall we remove AI-assisted commits again?

@ljs @vbabka @piggo @corbet you forgot to add /s.
Just curious: Do I get British understatement right if I say: “I am not completely amused by the present situation?”

@ljs Thank you!
@vbabka @piggo @corbet

@ljs @vbabka @piggo @ptesarik @corbet "we should start with an AI policy document FIRST." - 100% on the money.

I'm also concerned that, whatever the intention, a CLAUDE.md file in the root of the kernel repo will be interpreted as endorsement of Claude specifically. And then every other LLM vendor will expect their own config file to be added to advertise their agent.

@ljs @pbarker @piggo @ptesarik @corbet two old men yelling at claudes

@vbabka @ljs @pbarker @piggo @ptesarik @corbet very eloquent branch-shaking djentlemen!!!