No disclosure for LLM-generated patch?

I vaguely remember some llm providers include legal wavers for copyright where they take on the liability, but I can't find one for e.g. copilot right now

One problem is that reviewers typically assume the patch was submitted in good faith, and look for the kinds of errors that good-faith humans typically make (which the reviewer has learned through many years of experience, debugging their own code and other people's code).

If e.g. Jia Tan started submitting patches to your project, you wouldn't say "I know he deliberately introduced a subtle backdoor into OpenSSH and he's probably a front for a national intelligence service, but he also submitted plenty of genuinely useful patches while building up trust, so let's welcome him and just review all his patches carefully before accepting them". You'd understand that your review process is not infallible and he's going to try to sneak something past it, with malicious patches that look as non-suspicious as possible, so it's not worth the risk and you would simply ban him. Linux banned a whole university for a clumsy version of that: https://lwn.net/Articles/853717/. The source of a patch _does_ matter.

Similarly, LLMs generate code with errors that are not what a good-faith human would typically make, so they're not the kind of errors that reviewers are looking out for. A human isn't going to hallucinate a whole API and write a professional-looking well-documented patch that calls it, but an LLM will eagerly do so. In the best case, it'll waste reviewers' time as they try to figure out what the nonsense means. In the worst case there will be more subtle inhuman bugs that get missed because nobody is thinking to look for them.

At the same time, the explicit goal of generating code with LLMs is to make developers more productive at writing patches, meaning there will be more patches to review and reviewers will be under even more pressure. And in the long term there will be fewer new reviewers, because none of the junior developers who outsourced their understanding of the code to an LLM will be learning enough to take on that role. I think writing code is already the easiest and most enjoyable part of software development, so it seems like the worst part to be trying to automate away.

I was going to even ask Sasha if this came from some new tool. I think I should have. And yes, it would have been nice if Sasha mentioned that it was completely created by an LLM because I would have taken a deeper look at it. It appears (from comments below) that it does indeed have a slight bug. Which I would have caught if I had know this was 100% generated, as I would not have trusted the patch as much as I did thinking Sasha did the work.