On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 4:40 AM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > > Where do I say rewrite everything with AI? The following PRs are generated by AI: !include/fcntl.h: align open flags with Linux values by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #19238 · apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19238> include/fcntl.h: remove O_RDOK/O_WROK aliases by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #19231 · apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19231> libc/grp: add getgrouplist() by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #19183 · apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19183> drivers/serial: add job-control TTY ioctls by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #19184 · apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19184> fs: widen ino_t to uint32_t and add d_ino to struct dirent by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #19179 · apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19179> arch/sim: replace macOS C++ constructor runtime hack with post-link patch by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #18886 · apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18886> !sched/clock: drop CONFIG_SYSTEM_TIME64 / CONFIG_HAVE_LONG_LONG / CONFIG_LIBC_LONG_LONG and sclock_t by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #18840 · apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18840> tools: replace showstack.sh with stackusage.py by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #18538 · apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18538> !sched: drop CONFIG_SYSTEM_TIME64 / CONFIG_HAVE_LONG_LONG / CONFIG_LIBC_LONG_LONG and sclock_t by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #3468 · apache/nuttx-apps <https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3468> apps: drop redundant 64-bit casts on tv_sec/tv_nsec arithmetic by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #3476 · apache/nuttx-apps <https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3476> Replace O_RDOK with O_RDONLY after alias removal by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #3566 · apache/nuttx-apps <https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3566> apps: Replace O_RDOK with O_RDONLY after alias removal by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #3568 · apache/nuttx-apps <https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3568> apps: Fix O_ACCMODE bitmask checks after Linux flag alignment by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #3572 · apache/nuttx-apps <https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3572> All of them either fix the problem, or add new functionality. AI is a powerful tool just like a knife, whether it can make a positive or negative impact depends on the user. The excellent engineer could do a wonderful job with AI. I am still the owner of the above PRs since AI can't generate these PRs without my thought and instruction. > -- > 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/ > On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 4:40 AM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ >
