Rule-wise, this seems fair.
Regardless, if AI usage continues to increase in this manner, I'll likely be driving NetBSD, AROS, and FreeDOS by the end of the decade.
Maybe even a little TempleOS or ZealOS, for flavour.
Rule-wise, this seems fair.
Regardless, if AI usage continues to increase in this manner, I'll likely be driving NetBSD, AROS, and FreeDOS by the end of the decade.
Maybe even a little TempleOS or ZealOS, for flavour.
AI agents MUST NOT add Signed-off-by tags. Only humans can legally certify the Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO). The human submitter is responsible for:
- Reviewing all AI-generated code
- Ensuring compliance with licensing requirements
- Adding their own Signed-off-by tag to certify the DCO
- Taking full responsibility for the contribution
That's fair. Nobody has to know you wrote it with a not, that's impossible to detect, but you have to own it and be ready for the discussions that follow.
@onlinepersona @Innerworld And what do you think, will the AI agent be ready to the following discussion?
Well, no. But then it gets rejected, and further PRs that also fail the check will likely get you banned from contributing.
The human is responsible.
If the code or PR fails, the human has to own that.
If the human fails to own that, the human gets banned
Given that nobody is able to guarantee that code used for training was used according to it’s license, this means no hallucinated code in Linux. Nice.
It really has come a long way in a relatively very short time in terms of quality and, well, shitting under the rug
all 15 comments