The goal is not an outright ban, but a proper policy about AI tools so that we actually have moderation privilege as reviewers when dealing with the slop PRs. I also agree that AI tooling is, at least in the current day, inevitable to encounter in open-source and it is obviously not pragmatic to ban it considering how many people on this mailing list have already voiced their positive opinion of using AI tools correctly. It is not my goal to ban it.
It is incredibly tiring to read the AI-generated output for PR descriptions, commit messages and responses to comments. It is incredibly verbose, sycophantic, sometimes makes obvious errors and it's even more annoying when you are trying to have a review conversation with a developer and you are being responded to by a machine. It is not interesting when people submit entirely AI-generated PRs; we can all access Claude and we can all ask it to fix a bug. I'm not saying that those PRs have no value; there have a been a number of great bug patches recently that were clearly discovered and patched with AI. But interacting with people developing full features who cannot be bothered to even respond to review comments as a human and instead delegate to AI is frustrating. This is one of the main things in the Godot policy that I think is important to keep. It is basic respect to engage with your fellow human in good faith. I do think NuttX should eventually have a policy allowing us to ban GitHub users that auto-open generated PRs and issue links. This is happening already and it won't slow down, at least for a while. That is not a part of the Godot policy, and I think the Godot policy is a much more moderate stance. And again, copyright issues remain to be a huge problem with these models and that is a can of worms we are opening by allowing the merge of entirely AI-written PRs. I think that is an important issue we need to consider as a grey zone, because yes it is impossible to quantify what is AI-written and how much becomes too much for copyright issues, but I think at the very least we need to have some kind of stipulation that majorly generated PRs need to show some kind of indication that the output was verified to be license compatible (I am informed that Codex has such tooling readily-available). I loathe reading AI-generated PR descriptions and I will start refusing to read them if the number continues to uptick. People at least need to spend some amount of time tailoring the text to contain only relevant information. There are people on this mailing list who know how to use AI as a tool and have a respect for quality, and they submit high quality code, AI-assisted or not. But it's not hard to see that AI tooling is empowering a lot of lazy or low-skilled developers to quickly generate and submit patches for whatever ends (inflating a resume, getting good GitHub stats, etc.). And I do not think the people that are submitting these kinds of low-quality patches are deserving of a review. This creates a back-and-forth where maintainers are spending their time basically coaching other people's models into creating a passable PR through a middle man who has no idea what they're doing. That's not sustainable and that's what this policy targets: giving us tools to close such patches until the user at least opens the contribution guide themselves. Matteo On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 9:37 AM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > Or a revolution in the way AI/LLM uses the Processor/GPU/Memory. > > The issue is not only the HW, it is also the software. > > BR, > > Alan > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 10:35 AM raiden00pl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > What happens when the price goes up? > > > > Who knows. Some will likely pay, some will abandon AI. The market will > > decide whether the technology and companies survive. > > 3D printing or CNC was also essentially useless to the masses for years, > > until the costs of using the technology dropped drastically. It could be > > similar with AI. > > > > Personally, I hope that local LLMs will be the future, but this requires > > some kind of revolution in hardware. > > > > czw., 16 lip 2026 o 15:22 Nathan Hartman <[email protected]> > > napisał(a): > > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 8:18 AM raiden00pl <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Currently, AI companies are completely unprofitable and are burning > > > > investors' money. It's likely they will never be profitable, so using > > AI > > > > now, > > > > when tokens are practically free with subscription plans, is quite > > > rational > > > > approach. > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens when the price goes up? > > > > > >
