Linux

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.

They why try to hide it? If AI is not problematic at all, why do 90% of AI bros hide it and refuse to disclose and when they do are often extremely cagey about it?

For these types of projects, it is standardized what compiler they are building against, kernel /proc allows you to see what compiler was used.

Why does AI, which Linus himself has compared to compilers numerous times, get a complete pass and absolutely nothing has to be specified about them whatsoever (in the anti-AI-Disclosure advocation space of course)?

but why remove it ?

It's been said a billion times: you don't get to decide what I find relevant. The only reason these clowns want to hide their behavior is because they're ashamed of the criticism. There is no other reason to hide attribution, your patronization notwithstanding.

It's seen by a lot of eyes

Wonder how long before the code review is also offloaded to AI and Linux kernel becomes a black box with not even Linus himself knowing well enough how it works and what it does.

I have also been thinking about this, because as far as I know you're correct - at least under US copyright law, AI output is not copyrightable, and since you don't own it you can't license it. All AI code is public domain (again, at least in the US). It's surprising to me that there has been little discussion about this, and Linus himself has not addressed it

That would be solved by removing public mentions of ai companies in the ai disclosure notice.

The question is why it matters in the first place. As long as the person submitting code takes ownership of the code, and there is a review of the code being done the same as before, nothing actually changes. Your whole line of argument is absurd because it's premised on the idea that we can trust code produced by a human more than code produced by an LLM. And that's obviously not true because humans make mistakes all the time. So, the focus on how the code was produced is fundamentally misguided. The focus in any successful project is on validation through things like code reviews, specifications, testing, and other well established practices. That's what responsible teams have always done.