[LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] doc: Add ground rules page

[Petr Vorel]

...
> > [1]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/1bd04ce1-87c0-4e23-b155-84f7235f6072@redhat.com/


> What a coincidence! I just spoke face-to-face with David Hildenbrand
> at LPC last Friday. He expressed concerns about the increasing amount
> of AI-generated code being sent to the LKML, pointing out that it does
> indeed place a considerable review burden on maintainers. Moreover,
> he himself rarely uses AI.

Nice :).

"DoS kernel maintainers with AI slop" is a real danger.

> Furthermore, some experts at Huawei told me that they only allow patch
> senders to review patches before sending them, but do not permit the
> use of AI-generated code.

+1. Is that due "AI slop" or legal issues?

While I also share the fear of "AI slop", I was surprised that QEMU really
strictly bans AI generated code due legal issues. I wonder if kernel endup the
same as well.

https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/devel/code-provenance.html#use-of-ai-generated-content

> And, of course, clearly flagging content as AI-generated code in the patch
> might help.

+1.

IMHO using AI for help with manual work, e.g. converting docs from asciidoc
to RST format is ok. For me the question is whether it can be used for
generating a test code (new tests from scratch, rewrite into into new API which
is often clearer write from scratch).

Anyway, because we already had some AI generated patches it'd be good to have an
AI policy.  But I would like not to block this patchset it (it'd be nice to get
the patchset merged before Christmas and solve AI policy afterwards).

Kind regards,
Petr