Hi all, I'd like to add an embedded C relevant perspective to this.
*"No use of AI to generate substantial pieces of code"* During the development of peripheral drivers, often you have to write hundreds of register addresses and access code. Usually I hand write the foundation, the most critical code, but all the heavy boilerplate and repetition of accessing hundreds of register addresses are generated by AI. Also *fully* reviewed and tested by a human. To me this feels more like a tool / autocomplete and less vibe-coding. This kind of AI usage can grow a driver file very fast and would be considered "use of AI to generate substantial pieces of code"? For all the other points, I agree. A human author must understand and review the code entirely. But when is a code considered a substantial piece of code generated by AI? This could be easily solved by always following "If you do use AI in some capacity to author code, you must disclose it in the PR discussion.", but if this gets overused or underused, it loses its point. So, I think the solution should be in the direction that the user must review and understand everything they have written and generated. No matter the scale. If you can't explain why a certain thing is done, it's probably too "vibe coded". Thoughts? Best, Kevin Op wo 1 jul 2026 om 17:48 schreef Matteo Golin <[email protected]>: > Hello everyone, > > NuttX still has not adopted an AI policy, and the number of substantially > AI-generated contributions is continuing to grow. Recently, the Godot > project adopted a new AI policy which I think is quite reasonable. [1] > > I would like to suggest that NuttX adopt the AI policy from Godot [1] > (slightly modified for more clarity), as follows, and include it in our > contribution guide: > > - *No autonomous AI agent use or vibe coding* > > - A human must be involved in the coding process if patches are > submitted > > - *No use of AI to generate substantial pieces of code* > > - We require all code to be human authored. AI assistance should be > limited to menial things (like code completion, regex, formatting, or > find > and replace). > - If you do use AI in some capacity to author code, you must disclose it > in the PR discussion. > > - *No AI-generated text in human-to-human communication* > > - When our maintainers volunteer their time to review your issue, PR, or > proposal, they do not want to talk to a machine. This is a basic > principle > of respect. > - Machine translations are still acceptable as long as the original > content was written by a human. > - This includes PR descriptions and comments. > > - *All PRs must be reviewed and approved by a human before merging* > Please let me know your thoughts, I really think it is time to adopt this > change as I am seeing more and more frequently that substantially > AI-generated PRs are submitted (what is really most frustrating is its use > in human-to-human communication). > > Best, > Matteo > > [1]: https://godotengine.org/article/contribution-policy-2026/ >
