Hmm, discussion here is quite sad to be honest, but a good example of the problem with a clear summary:
"@Otpvondoiats: @linguini1 I can understand that you don't welcome open source contributors, so please don't review my patches anymore." https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18266 Whether it was AI generated or not we already see the general loss of trust. Maybe it is more important than we think. I hoped that Contributing Guide updates would make things easy by defining clear expectations for both contributors and maintainers. What is more, PR contains breaking changes that are not marked presented nor discussed correctly as expected, which is another problem to skip for now. Do we want to treat open-source as our own private playground where we can put whatever we want however we want without minding other people? Lets focus on how to improve things.. is it miscommunication.. misunderstanding.. purposeful ignorance.. enforcing changes? How can we meet in the middle? -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 4:04 PM Matteo Golin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > This week in particular there has been a large number of AI-generated pull > requests submitted to NuttX and NuttX apps. Most of these used AI to > completely generate PR descriptions and/or commit messages. In some cases, > AI was used to generate documentation and possibly code. > > The quality of these PRs are low, containing unnecessary information that > summarized the diffs (i.e. files changed, lines inserted, etc) and > repetitive summaries. The dangerous aspect of these PRs is that the vast > majority of them contained completely generated test claims with no logs > (and in some cases, generated logs) to back them. When asked about the test > claims, the authors stated that the PR was AI-generated and removed all > claims. > > This is starting to become a trend, with a lot of recent PRs containing the > same "files changed" section. They are difficult to review because they > don't communicate the changes clearly, have unnecessary information and > often contain fabricated information. Some of them contain multiple commits > which should be reviewed split across multiple PRs and change summaries > which omit information about commits. PR authors are also refusing to > provide logs or adequate explanations in some cases. > > I think it's time for the community to discuss a stance on AI generated > submissions. I don't think it's enforceable to prevent contributors from > using AI in their PRs, and some contributors may be using it to assist them > in a moderate way (I personally do not think any AI use is good, but I know > this is not realistic for many people). I think that PRs which contain AI > generated descriptions or code should be blocked by a change request until > they are modified to improve the code quality or description quality. This > isn't really a change, that's what we do with poor code submissions. > However, I think contributors should be warned to stop using AI output if > they are not verifying it, and there should be a stance from NuttX in the > contributing guidelines regarding AI usage/guidelines. If it becomes a > pattern for certain contributors I think their PRs should start getting > closed. > > What does the community think? > > Matteo > > Here are some of these AI PRs: > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3381 > https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3397 > https://github.com/apache/ <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18223>nuttx > <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18223>/pull/18223 > <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18223> > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18266 > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18221 > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18219 > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18217 > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18216 > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18205 > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18207
