Yes, very good. Let's judge the end result, not the tools used to produce the result. ________________________________ From: Xiang Xiao <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2026 2:58 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
As one of the most active reviewers/committers in this project, what I actually care about when reviewing a PR is: Does the code follow our style and architecture? Is it tested, and can the author explain and defend it during review? These criteria catch bad AI submissions just as well as bad human ones. A policy that bans the tool rather than the bad outcome is both unenforceable (we can't reliably detect AI authorship) and would penalize contributors who use AI responsibly. So my suggestion: Require disclosure of substantial AI assistance in the PR description — agreed. Require the author to fully understand the change and respond to review by themselves — agreed. Keep "all PRs reviewed and approved by a human before merging" — this is already our practice. But do not prohibit AI-assisted or AI-generated code per se; judge the code, not the tool. In short: hold humans accountable for what they submit, instead of banning how it was produced. Thanks Xiang On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 4:18 PM Sebastien Lorquet <[email protected]> wrote: > Note: this email is not an attack on anyone. it's just my personal > analysis. > > Hi Alan, > > If it was realistic, I would agree, but we all know that "ai" tools are > designed to trigger the gambling addiction inherent to human nature and > *absolutely no one* uses these tools "responsibly". The temptation is > just too strong when you have started using it to generate code. Let > alone verify it. Once you've generated 3-4 working functions with it, > the temptation to trust the generation is immense. > > This addiction is very strong, and hard to realize once you've switched > your deep mind into thinking that ""ai" could do something useful". > > You will probably argue that I am wrong and that you are reasonable. > okay, but what about other people you have no control on influence on? > > Just remember that this whole conversation started for the EXACT reason > that "ai" was not used responsibly for nuttx contributions. > > So, I dont believe in "reasonable "ai" usage". It's a theoretical > well-being thought to allow yourself the use of a known bad tool that > save time when your boss gives you pressure. > > > Also, a calculator gives exact results 100% of the time. I dont need to > verify that a calculator actually gave me sqrt(2) as a result. > > On the contrary "ai" only gives hallucinations that happen to do some of > the job some of the time, and no one reviews the code most of the time, > except in rare situations. > > But it talks to you like a human would, says sorry when it wipes your > home dir, has a human name, confirms your opinions, and then we fall for > the "junior assistant dev" mental image, because it's designed for that. > > > We all know that seriously proof reading code is 10 times harder (and > more boring) than writing it in the first place. Because we're not in a > flow mental state when proofreading, there is no dopamine, no inspiration. > > This gives even more hard work to nuttx reviewers. > > Sebastien > > > On 7/15/26 21:27, Alan C. Assis wrote: > > Hi Sebastien, > > > > The number of real contributions developed using AI is still not high, > that > > is happening at this moment are contributions for fixes using AI. > > > > But the number of contributions using AI will increase for sure as the AI > > agents become more reliable. > > > > Honestly I'm not against the use of AI, when done with responsibility by > > people with skill to understand if that generated code has good quality > or > > not. > > > > AI is just a tool, like a calculator. You can decide not to use a > > calculator and do all the maths by yourself (in our head or in pencil and > > paper). > > > > Both approaches are fine, since you already know how to do the math in > the > > first place. The only problem in this case is that you will become lazy > > (why do mental math if I can use a calculator?) > > > > And just like a calculator, if used by a kid that doesn't know how to do > > math, he will never master it (I think this is the real issue, for the > > person themself). > > > > BR, > > > > Alan > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 5:21 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/ > >>>> >
