Because rules have to be enforced, and investing time and effort into detecting and punishing rule-breakers would be a pointless endeavor when, disclosure/AI or not, all code has to be reviewed anyway.

maybe we should ask the maintainers, since it's they're the ones where this disclaimer could be useful or not. :)

On the contrary, a small piece of text that says “this code deserves more review because humans may not have seen it” is absolutely necessary.

All this is doing is making it so I can hide that I didn’t touch the code.

Why are you assuming that everyone would honestly disclose AI use if it was a rule?

The honest ones that would disclose it to say "this needs more eyes, guys" can still do just that. The dishonest ones that would hide AI use will do exactly that whether it's a rule or not.

The only difference here is there's no punitive action to follow for non-disclosure because that would be a gigantic waste of time when, AI or not, all code needs to be reviewed anyway.

because there is no guarantee the code will be wrong per se. should junior developers need to disclose this fact, then? because according to your logic their code could be wrong! furthermore, there's the fact people will do whatever the fuck they want, regardless of you raging on an internet forum about disclosure. people might not even read that shit because they don't give a fuck. so you end up with half assed policy which you cannot enforce. job well done, let's go home boys.

90% of AI bros hide it and refuse to disclose and when they do are often extremely cagey about it

source?

i have seen the complete opposite, just because some post doesnt start with THIS WAS DONE BY AI doesn't mean someone's trying to hide it. i recently saw a post where they shared the repo, you could clearly see claude as a contributor in the repo and many of the commits were done by it. but apparently they were trying to hide it. these kinds of complaints sound that came from people who have never used git, let alone touch a single line of code.

the comparison is not correct. a compiler is deterministic, asking about it is asking about a standardized tool. ai is stochastic, asking about it does not guarantee reproducibility, which is the whole point, not suspicion about if the compiler did or did not translated it properly into machine code. furthermore, precisely since ai is stochastic, even if you knew which model and version you used, you'd get different results, which needs review anyway.

the developers of the linux kernel, people who have probably been coding for at least 20 years, are clowns.

Yes, fuckstick. That's the whole point to a lot of people.

I swear, the level of smugness of AI true believers is totally inappropriate.

Yes.

If a piece of art is "good" who cares where it came from? The "where it came from" is as integral to the "quality" of the art as the "art" itself.

This is a very "product" mindset, concerned with the end result and how it serves you. Myself, and many others, are not as concerned with that or they may be against AI for other ethical or environmental reasons.

The take you're giving presupposes that the utility of the end result is the only axis upon which to judge something.

i feel you, i honestly been feeling the need to avoid the linux community (although i've obviously failed) for some time because is tiring.