If one were to follow the kernel's LLM guidelines, that's not the information being offered. If I do 90% of the work and the LLM does 10% of the work, I Sign-off Assisted-by the LLM. If the LLM does 100% of the work, I Sign-off Assisted-by the LLM. These are a world apart wrt judging confidence in both the committer and the commits. At face value, you're lumping somebody who took the time to use a /kreview skill to check their work at the end together with somebody who was entirely hands off and couldn't pass a quiz about their commit.

As someone who genuinely wants both to learn how to work on the kernel and to use LLM tools responsibly, I don't want to look like a bot at a glance. Meanwhile the actual bots can just lie. So I don't think it's that obvious. If the policy is "you have to voluntarily add this mark of shame if you used a particular type of tool" then it's not likely to benefit anyone in such an obvious way. As we can see in the comments here, developers have all kinds of moral agendas which may conflict with the imperatives of the maintainers they are working with. The SFC's attempt at an ethical treatise is apparently not yet the final word.

And I don't want to dismiss the very real moral and ethical questions surrounding LLM technology and the way it is being rolled out. In our community the maintainers are the ones feeling the most pain, so I feel like the best course of action is to do whatever small change they ask me to do, for now, because my ethics bone tells me that these software projects continuing to be well-maintained is more important than hand wringing over mentioning the name of a company whose product I use while holding my nose.

From Corbet's 7.1 release statistics article:

> This release saw the merging of 15,849 non-merge changesets from 2,479 developers.

> The 7.1 cycle continued that trend [of first-time kernel contributors] with 530 new contributors [...]

> There are 299 commits in 7.1 that include an Assisted-by tag indicating the use of such a tool. The number of actual commits created with LLM involvement must be significantly higher, though; a number of developers are clearly not complying with the kernel's rules for disclosing that use.