Hello,
I do not ask anyone to share my opinion, but since you asked...
I have seen enough slop everywhere on the web to confirm that I WILL
NEVER TOUCH any of this.
And I claim that I dont need to use it to make that judgement.
Everything about "ai" is wrong and problematic, even if you want to
tolerate one aspect, it stays unacceptable.
-quality is unacceptable,
-environnemental impact is unacceptable
-ethics are unacceptable
-it is completely unsustainable on the financial and industrial levels
-above all, it renders humans incapable and addicted to a centralized
system owned by billionaires
-it destroys communities and cultures
So, no thank you.
Sebastien
On 7/2/26 15:12, raiden00pl wrote:
Out of curiosity, have people who are against AI in this conversation
actually used AI? From some of the comments, I see they have little
idea what an AI workflow looks like and that AI writes code on its own
without much human intervention or creativity. Vibe coding and creating
high-quality code with AI are two different things.
The only concern I see with AI is the copyright issue. But that's not the
problem
of this project, but a global problem of how copyright is approached in
the AI era. As an anti-copyright advocate, I'm glad that technological
advancement
may finally put an end to this absurdity (infoanarchist here).
czw., 2 lip 2026 o 15:04 Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> napisał(a):
Hi Tomek,
"therefore is owned by the AI owner" that is wrong, none AI supplier is
owner of the result code.
Please read the ASF links that Greg sent, you will find reference to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
The problem is the opposite: all code generated by AI is "public domain",
you cannot say it is your copyright and the AI LLM owner cannot say it is
their copyright.
If you consider that all AI LLM are trained with knowledge created by
humanity, this decision seems fair.
Everybody using AI is just like the "Monkey" pressing the capture Button.
Every project receiving that code is the news media publishing the Monkey
picture.
BR,
Alan
On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 5:58 PM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote:
I think we had this discussion some time ago.
The biggest issue here is copyright claims and licensing of the fully
generated code, noted by the FreeBSD project, we need Apache guides
here true. But imagine someone pushes Apache 2.0 licensed code that
was generated by AI and therefore is owned by the AI owner and cannot
be attributed Apache license.
We want real passionates behind the code. This is that simple.
Below is a reminder of proposition for AGENTS.md and/or Contributing
Guide - we may have something like this just as general set of rules
that are project specific - just as code formatting right?
1.18. AI and Agents.
1.18.1. We expect authentic engagement in our community. NuttX comes
from years of hard work, passion, and personal dedication of
individuals from around the world. We welcome and respect people with
similar mindset. But we do not tolerate shortcuts and we have clearly
defined enemies (see The Inviolable Principles of NuttX).
1.18.2. AI tools may do some of the work parts for you but it will not
think for you. Treat them as your helpers but only in tasks which you
already have experience so you can understand, verify, and explain the
results details to anyone else on your own. We use tools to save our
precious time. Without prior experience and perfect understanding the
outcome is quite opposite - everyone's time is wasted - and we want to
avoid that.
1.18.3. Using AI tools for your internal work like brainstorming,
prototyping, finding information and examples, text correction,
verification against contributing guidelines and code formatting, is
fine, but the final submission shared with the project must be result
of your own work and intellect. This effort makes us grow, develop
individual skills, and provides experience necessary for top quality
results.
1.18.4. Using AI tools to generate a code, git commits, pull requests,
or any communication channel messages, even with minor edits to
pretend it's your own work, is unacceptable. This contradicts the
Apache Software Foundation contribution rules [citation_needed]. This
also imposes serious copyright and licensing infringement risks
because very often AI generated content is copyrighted by the AI owner
even if you created the result. If this is your first or following
contribution you will be banned.
1.18.5. We reserve right to ban/block/remove user accounts that are
considered malicious/spam/bot/ai activity that break any of the
presented rules.
1.18.6. The only exception here is for our own internal and approved
testing or automation tools that may, but usually do not, have some
sort of reporting autonomy, that we have created ourselves in
accordance with presented rules.
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 8:40 PM 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/
