The problem I'm currently seeing with AI commits in nuttx: docstrings and commit messages are too long! Nobody has time to read a wall of text longer than the code change itself. Sometimes a longer comment is required, but in many recent commits, it doesn't make sense. Be more concise, or you'll clutter the codebase.
czw., 16 lip 2026 o 18:06 Matteo Golin <[email protected]> napisał(a): > 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? > > > > > > > > > >
