Exactly!!! Again, AI is just a tool. If the user doesn't know how to use it correctly, it will produce bad quality code (slop).
But if the user sends the right instructions and spends time refining the result, it will produce high quality code (even better than many experienced developers). There are some steps that people need to follow: define the right scope; don't ask the AI to fix the code; ask it to debug and find the root causes and to explain it to you. Only after that you should work with the AI to implement something. BR, Alan On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 3:10 PM Mark Stevens via dev <[email protected]> wrote: > It does not matter whether you like AI or not, it is here to stay, plain > and simple, it is here, being used and is not going to go away any time > soon, if at all. > > If the aim of the project is to promote and increase the use of NuttX then > having any policy that forbids its use will have a negative effect on both > of these aims. You will either push people away from the project or push > them away from sharing their work. > > For me the question is not about the tool, it is about the quality of the > output: > > * Code should be correct and concise > * Code should be well documented and confirm to coding standards > * PRs should be to the point and not overly verbose > > And finally, PRs are the ownership of a person, the person is responsible > for all of the above. > > I can see the problem with large (or large numbers of) PRs being submitted > by AI bots. This is a technical problem created by technology and having a > policy is not going to stop that. > > The only sticking point really is copyright. This has always been an > issue even without AI. How many people here have used code from Stack > Overflow? Did you verify the copyright before you used an answer? Did the > person posting an answer ensure that their post did not breach copyright? > > Regards, > Mark > ------------------------------------------- > Mark Stevens > Blog: blog.mark-stevens.co.uk > > > > On 15 Jul 2026, at 15:53, Matteo Golin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hello Lwazi, > > > > Here is the earlier thread from another discussion about an AI policy: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg14358.html > > > > I agree with you that I do not want AI-generated code in NuttX, but many > of > > our contributors have and still do use AI tools for their development > > process. We have to have a discussion and accept a policy that the > > community endorses, even if that means making some compromises. This is > why > > it's important to contribute to this discussion, and when we move to a > > vote, to make sure you vote whichever way you're inclined. > > > > Matteo > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 4:21 AM Sebastien Lorquet <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> I agree with you but unfortunately, we're way past this stage already. > >> > >> The usage of AI in NuttX was started "as a normal thing to do" even > >> before permission was requested and things were discussed on the mailing > >> list. > >> > >> This is pretty much a tainted project and it has been for months, and > >> there is no turning back at this point. > >> > >> Sebastien > >> > >> > >> On 7/15/26 06:36, Lwazi Dube wrote: > >>> Was there an option presented for those of us who want to keep our > >>> open-source projects 100% free of AI-generated code? That discussion > >>> absolutely should have happened. If there’s a link to it, please > >>> share—imposing these tools on people who didn't ask for them is not > >>> acceptable. > >>> > >>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 at 11:47, Matteo Golin <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> 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/ > >>>> > >> > >
