Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] SubmittingPatches: add section about AI

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2025 09:20:34 -0700

Christian Couder <[email-masked]> writes:

>> A milder way to phrase this would be to jump directly to "we reject
>> what the sender cannot explain when asked about it".  "How does this
>> work?"  "Why is this a good thing to do?"  "Where did it come from?"
>> instead of saying "looks AI generated".
>>
>> It would sidestep the "who decides if it looks AI generated?" question.
>
> I don't think the "who decides if it looks AI generated?" question is
> very relevant. If someone says that a patch looks mostly AI generated
> and gives a good argument supporting this claim, it's the same as if
> someone gives any other good argument against the patch. In the end,
> the community and you decide if the argument is good enough and if the
> patch should be rejected based on that (and other arguments for and
> against the patch of course).

And then who plays the final arbiter?  One can keep insisting on a
patch that looks to me an apparent AI slop that it was what one
wrote oneself, but you may find it a plausible that it was a human
creation.  Then what?

It is very much relevant to avoid such argument, because the point
is irrelevant.  We are trying to avoid accepting something the
submitter has no rights to claim theirs, and requesting them to
explain where it came from, how it works, etc. would be a better
test than "does it look AI generated?  to everybody?", wouldn't it?