Hmm, we just got a good-bad-example, take a look at: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19249 - this adds new board rpi-pico-2-w but also breaks other areas boards etc. Matteo closed it as ai slop right away.
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19250 - then this PR showed up as fix very quickly after, with less issues, focused on the board added, and author honestly admitted all code was generated by AI. Thus my response in the PR but also here: > @xiaoxiang781216: We need accept the trend: all developers will utilize AI to > generate material (code, commit, documentation, pr) sooner or later. @xiaoxiang781216 I agree with @linguini1 here, and looking at the mailing list, most of the community - we want to keep NuttX a project developed by a community of passionates, professionals, and enthusiasts. "all developers will utilize AI to generate material (code, commit, documentation, pr) sooner or later" - yes we cannot avoid that, but we do NOT need to "accept the trend", we may just acknowledge the problem but not become part of the problem :-) This is similar to "rewrite everything in Rust" "trend" - we may acknowledge the problem and still not become part of the problem :-) Let people rewrite everything in Rust, but from scratch, away from here. The same with AI :-) I agree with Matteo that we should avoid AI slop. We had many bad examples already, costing us time and energy that could go intro something more constructive. Many Open-Source projects acknowledge this problem and do not want to be part of the problem. We want "our" projects to stay "ours" in terms of fun, code, mistakes, learning curve, experiments, and the overall the community of enthusiasts. What is the fun in rewrite-whole-NuttX-with-a-single-click for me ?? o_O -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 7:10 PM Gregory Nutt <[email protected]> wrote: > > We can't have a NuttX-specific AI policy. This polity is something that must > be consistent across all Apache projects. Remember, Apache owns this code! > > The are some Apache discussions and fragments of policies that are worth > considering. We should do nothing inconsistent with the final Apache > policies. Whatever Godot uses is irrelevant. > > This is what I was able to find in a a single google: > > > * > Some general discussion: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/l0n4w86v1o5cwkqpqtf2q7lb7zdyrymf > * > Apache VP of Legal Affairs: > https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/why-generative-ai-guidance-is-essential-to-contributors-of-open-source > * > ASF Generative Tooling Guidance: > https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html > > I haven't really absorbed all of this. My point is that we must follow the > same rules and principles as the Apache Software Foundation on this. > > Greg > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Matteo Golin <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:47 AM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy > > 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/
