> Besides, if AI is really that good for NuttX, why aren't we seeing the > issue count go down?
Probably because people prefer to work on new stuff than fix issues. It takes a fair amount of work to submit PRs and I would suggest that people only do this for the things that are important to them. Sadly this is human nature. Regards, Mark ------------------------------------------- Mark Stevens Blog: blog.mark-stevens.co.uk > On 16 Jul 2026, at 00:40, Lwazi Dube <[email protected]> wrote: > > Our argument takes it for granted that AI is here to stay as a tool, making > any explicit reminder unnecessary. We want to keep our open-source projects > free of AI-generated code. A similar stance by our predecessors is what > gave us this ecosystem that will be lost if we let algorithms write the > future of open source. > Besides, if AI is really that good for NuttX, why aren't we seeing the > issue count go down? > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 at 15:35, Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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/ >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>
