| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20250728134653.635a9dc5@batman.local.home> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 13:46:53 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: <dan.j.williams@...el.com> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, <workflows@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kees@...nel.org>, <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>, <corbet@....net>, <josh@...htriplett.org> Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Add AI coding assistant configuration to Linux kernel On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 13:34:32 -0700 <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote: > > This touches on explainability of AI. Perhaps the metadata would be > > interesting for XAI research... not sure that's enough to be lugging > > those tags in git history. > > Agree. The "who to blame" is "Author:". They signed DCO they are > responsible for debugging what went wrong in any stage of the > development of a patch per usual. We have a long history of debugging > tool problems without tracking tool versions in git history. My point of the "who to blame" was not about the author of said code, but if two or more developers are using the same AI agent and then some patter of bugs appears that is only with that AI agent, then we know that the AI agent is likely the culprit and to look for code by other developers that used that same AI agent. It's a way to track down a bug in a tool that is creating code, not about moving blame from a developer to the agent itself. -- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists