You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@nuttx.apache.org by Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com> on 2026/07/01 15:47:24 UTC
[COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
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/
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>.
Except that we shouldn't allow it for big things. What if our only board
support for a particular device is entirely AI generated? Who will want to
completely replace it with their own code? And now, we have targets that
users have to allow unlicensed AI stuff for. It's like our rule for no HAL;
AI generated code is also very difficult to maintain in large quantities.
Many contributors who submit largely AI generated code do not maintain it.
Matteo
On Wed, Jul 1, 2026, 2:40 PM Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, that is what I suggested at
> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19250
>
> Fortunately (or unfortunately) we don't have the same issues of Godot, we
> don't have hundreds/thousands of contributors submitting PRs.
>
> So, I think more important than totally blocking AI contributions is to
> make sure that the contributor understands what was created by AI with the
> help of AI and the contribution is not a slop code.
>
> This way I suggest we take a moderated approach, the same way we allow
> licenses that are not compatible with NuttX: adding a Kconfig option to let
> the users to decide whether they want AI code or not.
>
> BR,
>
> Alan
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 2:45 PM Lwazi Dube <lw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If the project is serious about licensing, copyrights and SBOM, are you
> > willing to add something like this to Kconfig too, AI-generated of course
> > :)
> >
> > menu "License Setup"
> >
> > config ALLOW_AI_COMPONENTS
> > bool "Allow AI-generated components with unverified provenance"
> > default n
> > help
> > Enabling this allows the use of AI-generated code where the exact
> > origin, licensing, and authorship cannot be verified. This may
> > introduce compliance, security, and legal risks.
> >
> > endmenu
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 at 11:47, Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>
> 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/
> > >
> >
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by "Alan C. Assis" <ac...@gmail.com>.
Yes, that is what I suggested at https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19250
Fortunately (or unfortunately) we don't have the same issues of Godot, we
don't have hundreds/thousands of contributors submitting PRs.
So, I think more important than totally blocking AI contributions is to
make sure that the contributor understands what was created by AI with the
help of AI and the contribution is not a slop code.
This way I suggest we take a moderated approach, the same way we allow
licenses that are not compatible with NuttX: adding a Kconfig option to let
the users to decide whether they want AI code or not.
BR,
Alan
On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 2:45 PM Lwazi Dube <lw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the project is serious about licensing, copyrights and SBOM, are you
> willing to add something like this to Kconfig too, AI-generated of course
> :)
>
> menu "License Setup"
>
> config ALLOW_AI_COMPONENTS
> bool "Allow AI-generated components with unverified provenance"
> default n
> help
> Enabling this allows the use of AI-generated code where the exact
> origin, licensing, and authorship cannot be verified. This may
> introduce compliance, security, and legal risks.
>
> endmenu
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 at 11:47, Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com> 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/
> >
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Lwazi Dube <lw...@gmail.com>.
If the project is serious about licensing, copyrights and SBOM, are you
willing to add something like this to Kconfig too, AI-generated of course
:)
menu "License Setup"
config ALLOW_AI_COMPONENTS
bool "Allow AI-generated components with unverified provenance"
default n
help
Enabling this allows the use of AI-generated code where the exact
origin, licensing, and authorship cannot be verified. This may
introduce compliance, security, and legal risks.
endmenu
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 at 11:47, Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com> 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/
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Guiding Li <li...@gmail.com>.
This proposal’s blanket ban on substantial AI-generated code is completely
out of touch with how modern embedded development actually works, and would
set NuttX back at a time every other major project is moving forward.
The Linux kernel — the most rigorously maintained upstream project on the
planet — does not ban AI-drafted code. It accepts patches built with AI
assistance all day long, so long as they meet the exact same quality,
licensing and correctness standards as hand-written code, and the submitter
owns every line end to end. If it’s good enough for Linux, it’s good enough
for NuttX. We gain nothing by being more puritanical than the kernel
community.
Inside the Vela project, the vast majority of day-to-day coding work uses
AI tooling as a core part of the workflow — not just autocomplete or regex
tweaks, but writing full driver stubs, implementing utility layers,
refactoring subsystems, and prototyping core logic.
It cuts weeks of boilerplate drudgery down to days. Burying our heads in
the sand and banning it on paper won’t make it go away — it will just push
it underground, with zero disclosure and zero accountability.
Here’s the only hard line that actually matters, and it’s the one part of
your proposal that is fully correct:
**Every single PR must be reviewed and approved by a human maintainer
before merge, no exceptions.**
And the human who submits the code **must fully understand every single
line** — the logic, the side effects, the error handling, how it fits into
NuttX’s architecture and coding conventions.
AI is a tool, nothing more. The submitter is 100% on the hook for the code
they push, period.
Banning “substantial AI-generated code” is a meaningless, unenforceable
distraction. Is 30% substantial? 60%?
Who’s going to forensically audit every PR to guess what percentage was
drafted by AI?
It’s the wrong fight entirely.
The real problem isn’t AI — it’s people dumping half-baked AI-generated
garbage they don’t even understand into PRs and wasting volunteer
maintainers’ time.
That’s the behavior we need to police, not the tool they used to write it.
So scrap the arbitrary “no substantial AI code” rule.
Keep the bans on fully autonomous agents and AI-generated PR
descriptions/comments — those are no-brainers, and straight-up
disrespectful to people donating their time to review.
Replace the code-generation rule with two non-negotiable requirements: full
disclosure of AI usage in the PR thread, and full personal accountability
from the submitter for every line.
Keep mandatory human review as the final, non-negotiable gate.
Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> 于2026年7月2日周四 01:06写道：
> +1 :-)
>
> --
> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026, 17:47 Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com> 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/
> >
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info>.
+1 :-)
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
On Wed, Jul 1, 2026, 17:47 Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com> 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/
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Kevin Witteveen <ke...@gmail.com>.
Hi Matteo,
Thanks for getting back to my reply.
I agree with what you have said. The AI generation seems to be indeed a
slippery slope regarding licenses.
After all, it is indeed trained on existing data.
In that case, I support the policy.
Best,
Kevin
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for your comments!
I guess that register definitions would be auto-complete in the scenario
you mentioned. Although those things are quite sensitive, so I would say
they're better copy-pasted from the datasheet. Regardless, I don't think
they would fall outside auto-complete in this policy. I think "substantial"
might be better thought of in the sense of logic. Register definitions are
large part of a driver in terms of characters/LOC maybe, but not really in
terms of logic (they are just constants).
> But when is a code considered a substantial piece of code generated by
AI?
This is pretty subjective and I don't think we can even attempt to define
it in a policy. This is why the policy mentions menial tasks for AI
assistance, which excludes core logic. Ultimately we can't nail down every
single use-case in the policy. It is just a tool that lets us warn
contributors in advance and gives us some ability to moderate AI generated
submissions.
The Apache Foundation has some guidelines about this:
https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html#include-in-contributions
We cannot copyright any generated output ever, and human reviewers need to
guarantee that their output is compatible with our open source licensing.
This is an impossible task, since it's been show many times (i.e. [1]) that
LLM output can contain verbatim copies of text in its training corpus. So
unless we can verify that the output doesn't contain anything not
compatible (i.e. snippets of the Linux source) externally (which we
cannot), the only surefire way to make sure something is compatible and
copyrightable is if it is human-written.
Obviously that kind of thing wouldn't apply to register definitions,
because there are only so many ways to do `#define REG_STATUS 0x01` for
instance.
> the user must review and understand everything they have written and
generated
I agree, especially in the case of AI-assistance. However, using AI for
substantial code chunks still has the aforementioned license compatibility
issues. I may be able to review and understand the Linux source code, but I
have no right to submit snippets of it to NuttX under Apache 2.0
(unknowingly or not). This is why it's a slippery slope to allow AI use
generating substantial logic, and why I think our stance should still be to
restrict it to menial tasks (see raiden's recent re-formatting of the STM32
ports; that is a legitimate and helpful use).
Best,
Matteo
[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02671
On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 12:08 PM Kevin Witteveen <ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to add an embedded C relevant perspective to this.
>
> *"No use of AI to generate substantial pieces of code"*
> During the development of peripheral drivers, often you have to write
> hundreds of register addresses and access code.
> Usually I hand write the foundation, the most critical code, but all the
> heavy boilerplate and repetition of accessing hundreds of register
> addresses are generated by AI.
> Also *fully* reviewed and tested by a human.
> To me this feels more like a tool / autocomplete and less vibe-coding.
> This kind of AI usage can grow a driver file very fast and would be
> considered "use of AI to generate substantial pieces of code"?
>
> For all the other points, I agree. A human author must understand and
> review the code entirely.
> But when is a code considered a substantial piece of code generated by AI?
> This could be easily solved by always following "If you do use AI in some
> capacity to author code, you must disclose it
> in the PR discussion.", but if this gets overused or underused, it loses
> its point.
>
> So, I think the solution should be in the direction that the user must
> review and understand everything they have written and generated. No matter
> the scale.
> If you can't explain why a certain thing is done, it's probably too "vibe
> coded".
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Best,
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
> Op wo 1 jul 2026 om 17:48 schreef Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>:
>
> > 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/
> >
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Kevin Witteveen <ke...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
I'd like to add an embedded C relevant perspective to this.
*"No use of AI to generate substantial pieces of code"*
During the development of peripheral drivers, often you have to write
hundreds of register addresses and access code.
Usually I hand write the foundation, the most critical code, but all the
heavy boilerplate and repetition of accessing hundreds of register
addresses are generated by AI.
Also *fully* reviewed and tested by a human.
To me this feels more like a tool / autocomplete and less vibe-coding.
This kind of AI usage can grow a driver file very fast and would be
considered "use of AI to generate substantial pieces of code"?
For all the other points, I agree. A human author must understand and
review the code entirely.
But when is a code considered a substantial piece of code generated by AI?
This could be easily solved by always following "If you do use AI in some
capacity to author code, you must disclose it
in the PR discussion.", but if this gets overused or underused, it loses
its point.
So, I think the solution should be in the direction that the user must
review and understand everything they have written and generated. No matter
the scale.
If you can't explain why a certain thing is done, it's probably too "vibe
coded".
Thoughts?
Best,
Kevin
Op wo 1 jul 2026 om 17:48 schreef Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>:
> 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/
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info>.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 6:00 AM Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 4:40 AM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
>
> > Hmm, we just got a good-bad-example, take a look at:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19249 - this adds new board
> > rpi-pico-2-w but also breaks other areas boards etc. Matteo closed it
> > as ai slop right away.
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19250 - then this PR showed up as
> > fix very quickly after, with less issues, focused on the board added,
> > and author honestly admitted all code was generated by AI.
> >
> >
> > Thus my response in the PR but also here:
> >
> > > @xiaoxiang781216: We need accept the trend: all developers will utilize
> > AI to generate material (code, commit, documentation, pr) sooner or later.
> >
> > @xiaoxiang781216 I agree with @linguini1 here, and looking at the
> > mailing list, most of the community - we want to keep NuttX a project
> > developed by a community of passionates, professionals, and
> > enthusiasts.
> >
> > "all developers will utilize AI to generate material (code, commit,
> > documentation, pr) sooner or later" - yes we cannot avoid that, but we
> > do NOT need to "accept the trend", we may just acknowledge the problem
> > but not become part of the problem :-)
> >
> > This is similar to "rewrite everything in Rust" "trend" - we may
> > acknowledge the problem and still not become part of the problem :-)
> >
> > Let people rewrite everything in Rust, but from scratch, away from
> > here. The same with AI :-)
> >
> >
> > I agree with Matteo that we should avoid AI slop. We had many bad
> > examples already, costing us time and energy that could go intro
> > something more constructive. Many Open-Source projects acknowledge
> > this problem and do not want to be part of the problem. We want "our"
> > projects to stay "ours" in terms of fun, code, mistakes, learning
> > curve, experiments, and the overall the community of enthusiasts.
> >
> > What is the fun in rewrite-whole-NuttX-with-a-single-click for me ?? o_O
> >
> >
> Where do I say rewrite everything with AI? The following PRs are generated
> by AI:
> !include/fcntl.h: align open flags with Linux values by xiaoxiang781216 ·
> Pull Request #19238 · apache/nuttx
> <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19238>
> include/fcntl.h: remove O_RDOK/O_WROK aliases by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull
> Request #19231 · apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19231>
> libc/grp: add getgrouplist() by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #19183 ·
> apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19183>
> drivers/serial: add job-control TTY ioctls by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull
> Request #19184 · apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19184>
> fs: widen ino_t to uint32_t and add d_ino to struct dirent by
> xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #19179 · apache/nuttx
> <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19179>
> arch/sim: replace macOS C++ constructor runtime hack with post-link patch
> by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #18886 · apache/nuttx
> <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18886>
> !sched/clock: drop CONFIG_SYSTEM_TIME64 / CONFIG_HAVE_LONG_LONG /
> CONFIG_LIBC_LONG_LONG and sclock_t by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #18840
> · apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18840>
> tools: replace showstack.sh with stackusage.py by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull
> Request #18538 · apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18538>
> !sched: drop CONFIG_SYSTEM_TIME64 / CONFIG_HAVE_LONG_LONG /
> CONFIG_LIBC_LONG_LONG and sclock_t by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #3468
> · apache/nuttx-apps <https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3468>
> apps: drop redundant 64-bit casts on tv_sec/tv_nsec arithmetic by
> xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #3476 · apache/nuttx-apps
> <https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3476>
> Replace O_RDOK with O_RDONLY after alias removal by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull
> Request #3566 · apache/nuttx-apps
> <https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3566>
> apps: Replace O_RDOK with O_RDONLY after alias removal by xiaoxiang781216 ·
> Pull Request #3568 · apache/nuttx-apps
> <https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3568>
> apps: Fix O_ACCMODE bitmask checks after Linux flag alignment by
> xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #3572 · apache/nuttx-apps
> <https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3572>
> All of them either fix the problem, or add new functionality.
> AI is a powerful tool just like a knife, whether it can make a positive or
> negative impact depends on the user.
> The excellent engineer could do a wonderful job with AI.
> I am still the owner of the above PRs since AI can't generate these PRs
> without my thought and instruction.
Hello Xiang, yes you are aware user that knows the code base perfectly
and use AI as your supporting tool, there is nothing wrong with that!
:-)
We are talking about many blind copy-paste of the results. We would
like to put some sort of notice or set of rules that would prevent
such situations.
We want to create a good community where people think on their own and
help each other.
There seems to be a trend "lets rewrite everything with AI" just as
"lets rewrite everything in Rust" and I was referring to that. For me
this is almost the same problem and we not necessarily want to be part
of that problem. We may acknowledge the problem but we do not have to
agree to that and thus not become part of the problem.
Also I have no problem with "rewrite" in "Rust" or "AI" when its done
from scratch, but leave working existing projects alone. In the long
term this is destructive and created unmaintainable projects, thus my
resistance here :-)
Another example here - security bugs are reported using AI tools, but
rarely fix is proposed, what would make things a lot smoother. I know
both sides, it would be nice to address them both.
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 4:40 AM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> Hmm, we just got a good-bad-example, take a look at:
>
> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19249 - this adds new board
> rpi-pico-2-w but also breaks other areas boards etc. Matteo closed it
> as ai slop right away.
>
> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19250 - then this PR showed up as
> fix very quickly after, with less issues, focused on the board added,
> and author honestly admitted all code was generated by AI.
>
>
> Thus my response in the PR but also here:
>
> > @xiaoxiang781216: We need accept the trend: all developers will utilize
> AI to generate material (code, commit, documentation, pr) sooner or later.
>
> @xiaoxiang781216 I agree with @linguini1 here, and looking at the
> mailing list, most of the community - we want to keep NuttX a project
> developed by a community of passionates, professionals, and
> enthusiasts.
>
> "all developers will utilize AI to generate material (code, commit,
> documentation, pr) sooner or later" - yes we cannot avoid that, but we
> do NOT need to "accept the trend", we may just acknowledge the problem
> but not become part of the problem :-)
>
> This is similar to "rewrite everything in Rust" "trend" - we may
> acknowledge the problem and still not become part of the problem :-)
>
> Let people rewrite everything in Rust, but from scratch, away from
> here. The same with AI :-)
>
>
> I agree with Matteo that we should avoid AI slop. We had many bad
> examples already, costing us time and energy that could go intro
> something more constructive. Many Open-Source projects acknowledge
> this problem and do not want to be part of the problem. We want "our"
> projects to stay "ours" in terms of fun, code, mistakes, learning
> curve, experiments, and the overall the community of enthusiasts.
>
> What is the fun in rewrite-whole-NuttX-with-a-single-click for me ?? o_O
>
>
Where do I say rewrite everything with AI? The following PRs are generated
by AI:
!include/fcntl.h: align open flags with Linux values by xiaoxiang781216 ·
Pull Request #19238 · apache/nuttx
<https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19238>
include/fcntl.h: remove O_RDOK/O_WROK aliases by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull
Request #19231 · apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19231>
libc/grp: add getgrouplist() by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #19183 ·
apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19183>
drivers/serial: add job-control TTY ioctls by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull
Request #19184 · apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19184>
fs: widen ino_t to uint32_t and add d_ino to struct dirent by
xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #19179 · apache/nuttx
<https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19179>
arch/sim: replace macOS C++ constructor runtime hack with post-link patch
by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #18886 · apache/nuttx
<https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18886>
!sched/clock: drop CONFIG_SYSTEM_TIME64 / CONFIG_HAVE_LONG_LONG /
CONFIG_LIBC_LONG_LONG and sclock_t by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #18840
· apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18840>
tools: replace showstack.sh with stackusage.py by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull
Request #18538 · apache/nuttx <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18538>
!sched: drop CONFIG_SYSTEM_TIME64 / CONFIG_HAVE_LONG_LONG /
CONFIG_LIBC_LONG_LONG and sclock_t by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #3468
· apache/nuttx-apps <https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3468>
apps: drop redundant 64-bit casts on tv_sec/tv_nsec arithmetic by
xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #3476 · apache/nuttx-apps
<https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3476>
Replace O_RDOK with O_RDONLY after alias removal by xiaoxiang781216 · Pull
Request #3566 · apache/nuttx-apps
<https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3566>
apps: Replace O_RDOK with O_RDONLY after alias removal by xiaoxiang781216 ·
Pull Request #3568 · apache/nuttx-apps
<https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3568>
apps: Fix O_ACCMODE bitmask checks after Linux flag alignment by
xiaoxiang781216 · Pull Request #3572 · apache/nuttx-apps
<https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3572>
All of them either fix the problem, or add new functionality.
AI is a powerful tool just like a knife, whether it can make a positive or
negative impact depends on the user.
The excellent engineer could do a wonderful job with AI.
I am still the owner of the above PRs since AI can't generate these PRs
without my thought and instruction.
> --
> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 7:10 PM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We can't have a NuttX-specific AI policy. This polity is something that
> must be consistent across all Apache projects. Remember, Apache owns this
> code!
> >
> > The are some Apache discussions and fragments of policies that are worth
> considering. We should do nothing inconsistent with the final Apache
> policies. Whatever Godot uses is irrelevant.
> >
> > This is what I was able to find in a a single google:
> >
> >
> > *
> > Some general discussion:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/l0n4w86v1o5cwkqpqtf2q7lb7zdyrymf
> > *
> > Apache VP of Legal Affairs:
> https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/why-generative-ai-guidance-is-essential-to-contributors-of-open-source
> > *
> > ASF Generative Tooling Guidance:
> https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
> >
> > I haven't really absorbed all of this. My point is that we must follow
> the same rules and principles as the Apache Software Foundation on this.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:47 AM
> > To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
> > Subject: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
> >
> > 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/
>
On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 4:40 AM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> Hmm, we just got a good-bad-example, take a look at:
>
> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19249 - this adds new board
> rpi-pico-2-w but also breaks other areas boards etc. Matteo closed it
> as ai slop right away.
>
> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19250 - then this PR showed up as
> fix very quickly after, with less issues, focused on the board added,
> and author honestly admitted all code was generated by AI.
>
>
> Thus my response in the PR but also here:
>
> > @xiaoxiang781216: We need accept the trend: all developers will utilize
> AI to generate material (code, commit, documentation, pr) sooner or later.
>
> @xiaoxiang781216 I agree with @linguini1 here, and looking at the
> mailing list, most of the community - we want to keep NuttX a project
> developed by a community of passionates, professionals, and
> enthusiasts.
>
> "all developers will utilize AI to generate material (code, commit,
> documentation, pr) sooner or later" - yes we cannot avoid that, but we
> do NOT need to "accept the trend", we may just acknowledge the problem
> but not become part of the problem :-)
>
> This is similar to "rewrite everything in Rust" "trend" - we may
> acknowledge the problem and still not become part of the problem :-)
>
> Let people rewrite everything in Rust, but from scratch, away from
> here. The same with AI :-)
>
>
> I agree with Matteo that we should avoid AI slop. We had many bad
> examples already, costing us time and energy that could go intro
> something more constructive. Many Open-Source projects acknowledge
> this problem and do not want to be part of the problem. We want "our"
> projects to stay "ours" in terms of fun, code, mistakes, learning
> curve, experiments, and the overall the community of enthusiasts.
>
> What is the fun in rewrite-whole-NuttX-with-a-single-click for me ?? o_O
>
> --
> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 7:10 PM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We can't have a NuttX-specific AI policy. This polity is something that
> must be consistent across all Apache projects. Remember, Apache owns this
> code!
> >
> > The are some Apache discussions and fragments of policies that are worth
> considering. We should do nothing inconsistent with the final Apache
> policies. Whatever Godot uses is irrelevant.
> >
> > This is what I was able to find in a a single google:
> >
> >
> > *
> > Some general discussion:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/l0n4w86v1o5cwkqpqtf2q7lb7zdyrymf
> > *
> > Apache VP of Legal Affairs:
> https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/why-generative-ai-guidance-is-essential-to-contributors-of-open-source
> > *
> > ASF Generative Tooling Guidance:
> https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
> >
> > I haven't really absorbed all of this. My point is that we must follow
> the same rules and principles as the Apache Software Foundation on this.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:47 AM
> > To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
> > Subject: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
> >
> > 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/
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info>.
Yes exactly, when code is yours then no problem, use AI as "assistant"
but not the tool that does everything for you.
There is no problem with using AI as support tool, just as Xiang
stated, and some other people.
But there is a problem when people blindly copy-paste AI results as
their own, we are discussing this issue :-)
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 1:14 PM Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just a more clarification:
>
> You can claim that the code is your copyright if the AI was used to guide
> you and you wrote the code (it is not just a Copy/Paste code from AI chat).
>
> BR,
>
> Alan
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 10:03 AM Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tomek,
> >
> > "therefore is owned by the AI owner" that is wrong, none AI supplier is
> > owner of the result code.
> >
> > Please read the ASF links that Greg sent, you will find reference to:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
> >
> > The problem is the opposite: all code generated by AI is "public domain",
> > you cannot say it is your copyright and the AI LLM owner cannot say it is
> > their copyright.
> >
> > If you consider that all AI LLM are trained with knowledge created by
> > humanity, this decision seems fair.
> >
> > Everybody using AI is just like the "Monkey" pressing the capture Button.
> > Every project receiving that code is the news media publishing the Monkey
> > picture.
> >
> > BR,
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 5:58 PM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> >
> >> I think we had this discussion some time ago.
> >>
> >> The biggest issue here is copyright claims and licensing of the fully
> >> generated code, noted by the FreeBSD project, we need Apache guides
> >> here true. But imagine someone pushes Apache 2.0 licensed code that
> >> was generated by AI and therefore is owned by the AI owner and cannot
> >> be attributed Apache license.
> >>
> >> We want real passionates behind the code. This is that simple.
> >>
> >> Below is a reminder of proposition for AGENTS.md and/or Contributing
> >> Guide - we may have something like this just as general set of rules
> >> that are project specific - just as code formatting right?
> >>
> >> 1.18. AI and Agents.
> >>
> >> 1.18.1. We expect authentic engagement in our community. NuttX comes
> >> from years of hard work, passion, and personal dedication of
> >> individuals from around the world. We welcome and respect people with
> >> similar mindset. But we do not tolerate shortcuts and we have clearly
> >> defined enemies (see The Inviolable Principles of NuttX).
> >>
> >> 1.18.2. AI tools may do some of the work parts for you but it will not
> >> think for you. Treat them as your helpers but only in tasks which you
> >> already have experience so you can understand, verify, and explain the
> >> results details to anyone else on your own. We use tools to save our
> >> precious time. Without prior experience and perfect understanding the
> >> outcome is quite opposite - everyone's time is wasted - and we want to
> >> avoid that.
> >>
> >> 1.18.3. Using AI tools for your internal work like brainstorming,
> >> prototyping, finding information and examples, text correction,
> >> verification against contributing guidelines and code formatting, is
> >> fine, but the final submission shared with the project must be result
> >> of your own work and intellect. This effort makes us grow, develop
> >> individual skills, and provides experience necessary for top quality
> >> results.
> >>
> >> 1.18.4. Using AI tools to generate a code, git commits, pull requests,
> >> or any communication channel messages, even with minor edits to
> >> pretend it's your own work, is unacceptable. This contradicts the
> >> Apache Software Foundation contribution rules [citation_needed]. This
> >> also imposes serious copyright and licensing infringement risks
> >> because very often AI generated content is copyrighted by the AI owner
> >> even if you created the result. If this is your first or following
> >> contribution you will be banned.
> >>
> >> 1.18.5. We reserve right to ban/block/remove user accounts that are
> >> considered malicious/spam/bot/ai activity that break any of the
> >> presented rules.
> >>
> >> 1.18.6. The only exception here is for our own internal and approved
> >> testing or automation tools that may, but usually do not, have some
> >> sort of reporting autonomy, that we have created ourselves in
> >> accordance with presented rules.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 8:40 PM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hmm, we just got a good-bad-example, take a look at:
> >> >
> >> > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19249 - this adds new board
> >> > rpi-pico-2-w but also breaks other areas boards etc. Matteo closed it
> >> > as ai slop right away.
> >> >
> >> > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19250 - then this PR showed up as
> >> > fix very quickly after, with less issues, focused on the board added,
> >> > and author honestly admitted all code was generated by AI.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thus my response in the PR but also here:
> >> >
> >> > > @xiaoxiang781216: We need accept the trend: all developers will
> >> utilize AI to generate material (code, commit, documentation, pr) sooner or
> >> later.
> >> >
> >> > @xiaoxiang781216 I agree with @linguini1 here, and looking at the
> >> > mailing list, most of the community - we want to keep NuttX a project
> >> > developed by a community of passionates, professionals, and
> >> > enthusiasts.
> >> >
> >> > "all developers will utilize AI to generate material (code, commit,
> >> > documentation, pr) sooner or later" - yes we cannot avoid that, but we
> >> > do NOT need to "accept the trend", we may just acknowledge the problem
> >> > but not become part of the problem :-)
> >> >
> >> > This is similar to "rewrite everything in Rust" "trend" - we may
> >> > acknowledge the problem and still not become part of the problem :-)
> >> >
> >> > Let people rewrite everything in Rust, but from scratch, away from
> >> > here. The same with AI :-)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I agree with Matteo that we should avoid AI slop. We had many bad
> >> > examples already, costing us time and energy that could go intro
> >> > something more constructive. Many Open-Source projects acknowledge
> >> > this problem and do not want to be part of the problem. We want "our"
> >> > projects to stay "ours" in terms of fun, code, mistakes, learning
> >> > curve, experiments, and the overall the community of enthusiasts.
> >> >
> >> > What is the fun in rewrite-whole-NuttX-with-a-single-click for me ?? o_O
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 7:10 PM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > We can't have a NuttX-specific AI policy. This polity is something
> >> that must be consistent across all Apache projects. Remember, Apache owns
> >> this code!
> >> > >
> >> > > The are some Apache discussions and fragments of policies that are
> >> worth considering. We should do nothing inconsistent with the final Apache
> >> policies. Whatever Godot uses is irrelevant.
> >> > >
> >> > > This is what I was able to find in a a single google:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > *
> >> > > Some general discussion:
> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/l0n4w86v1o5cwkqpqtf2q7lb7zdyrymf
> >> > > *
> >> > > Apache VP of Legal Affairs:
> >> https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/why-generative-ai-guidance-is-essential-to-contributors-of-open-source
> >> > > *
> >> > > ASF Generative Tooling Guidance:
> >> https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
> >> > >
> >> > > I haven't really absorbed all of this. My point is that we must
> >> follow the same rules and principles as the Apache Software Foundation on
> >> this.
> >> > >
> >> > > Greg
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > ________________________________
> >> > > From: Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>
> >> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:47 AM
> >> > > To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
> >> > > Subject: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
> >> > >
> >> > > 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/
> >>
> >
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by "Alan C. Assis" <ac...@gmail.com>.
Just a more clarification:
You can claim that the code is your copyright if the AI was used to guide
you and you wrote the code (it is not just a Copy/Paste code from AI chat).
BR,
Alan
On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 10:03 AM Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tomek,
>
> "therefore is owned by the AI owner" that is wrong, none AI supplier is
> owner of the result code.
>
> Please read the ASF links that Greg sent, you will find reference to:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
>
> The problem is the opposite: all code generated by AI is "public domain",
> you cannot say it is your copyright and the AI LLM owner cannot say it is
> their copyright.
>
> If you consider that all AI LLM are trained with knowledge created by
> humanity, this decision seems fair.
>
> Everybody using AI is just like the "Monkey" pressing the capture Button.
> Every project receiving that code is the news media publishing the Monkey
> picture.
>
> BR,
>
> Alan
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 5:58 PM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
>
>> I think we had this discussion some time ago.
>>
>> The biggest issue here is copyright claims and licensing of the fully
>> generated code, noted by the FreeBSD project, we need Apache guides
>> here true. But imagine someone pushes Apache 2.0 licensed code that
>> was generated by AI and therefore is owned by the AI owner and cannot
>> be attributed Apache license.
>>
>> We want real passionates behind the code. This is that simple.
>>
>> Below is a reminder of proposition for AGENTS.md and/or Contributing
>> Guide - we may have something like this just as general set of rules
>> that are project specific - just as code formatting right?
>>
>> 1.18. AI and Agents.
>>
>> 1.18.1. We expect authentic engagement in our community. NuttX comes
>> from years of hard work, passion, and personal dedication of
>> individuals from around the world. We welcome and respect people with
>> similar mindset. But we do not tolerate shortcuts and we have clearly
>> defined enemies (see The Inviolable Principles of NuttX).
>>
>> 1.18.2. AI tools may do some of the work parts for you but it will not
>> think for you. Treat them as your helpers but only in tasks which you
>> already have experience so you can understand, verify, and explain the
>> results details to anyone else on your own. We use tools to save our
>> precious time. Without prior experience and perfect understanding the
>> outcome is quite opposite - everyone's time is wasted - and we want to
>> avoid that.
>>
>> 1.18.3. Using AI tools for your internal work like brainstorming,
>> prototyping, finding information and examples, text correction,
>> verification against contributing guidelines and code formatting, is
>> fine, but the final submission shared with the project must be result
>> of your own work and intellect. This effort makes us grow, develop
>> individual skills, and provides experience necessary for top quality
>> results.
>>
>> 1.18.4. Using AI tools to generate a code, git commits, pull requests,
>> or any communication channel messages, even with minor edits to
>> pretend it's your own work, is unacceptable. This contradicts the
>> Apache Software Foundation contribution rules [citation_needed]. This
>> also imposes serious copyright and licensing infringement risks
>> because very often AI generated content is copyrighted by the AI owner
>> even if you created the result. If this is your first or following
>> contribution you will be banned.
>>
>> 1.18.5. We reserve right to ban/block/remove user accounts that are
>> considered malicious/spam/bot/ai activity that break any of the
>> presented rules.
>>
>> 1.18.6. The only exception here is for our own internal and approved
>> testing or automation tools that may, but usually do not, have some
>> sort of reporting autonomy, that we have created ourselves in
>> accordance with presented rules.
>>
>>
>> --
>> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 8:40 PM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hmm, we just got a good-bad-example, take a look at:
>> >
>> > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19249 - this adds new board
>> > rpi-pico-2-w but also breaks other areas boards etc. Matteo closed it
>> > as ai slop right away.
>> >
>> > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19250 - then this PR showed up as
>> > fix very quickly after, with less issues, focused on the board added,
>> > and author honestly admitted all code was generated by AI.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thus my response in the PR but also here:
>> >
>> > > @xiaoxiang781216: We need accept the trend: all developers will
>> utilize AI to generate material (code, commit, documentation, pr) sooner or
>> later.
>> >
>> > @xiaoxiang781216 I agree with @linguini1 here, and looking at the
>> > mailing list, most of the community - we want to keep NuttX a project
>> > developed by a community of passionates, professionals, and
>> > enthusiasts.
>> >
>> > "all developers will utilize AI to generate material (code, commit,
>> > documentation, pr) sooner or later" - yes we cannot avoid that, but we
>> > do NOT need to "accept the trend", we may just acknowledge the problem
>> > but not become part of the problem :-)
>> >
>> > This is similar to "rewrite everything in Rust" "trend" - we may
>> > acknowledge the problem and still not become part of the problem :-)
>> >
>> > Let people rewrite everything in Rust, but from scratch, away from
>> > here. The same with AI :-)
>> >
>> >
>> > I agree with Matteo that we should avoid AI slop. We had many bad
>> > examples already, costing us time and energy that could go intro
>> > something more constructive. Many Open-Source projects acknowledge
>> > this problem and do not want to be part of the problem. We want "our"
>> > projects to stay "ours" in terms of fun, code, mistakes, learning
>> > curve, experiments, and the overall the community of enthusiasts.
>> >
>> > What is the fun in rewrite-whole-NuttX-with-a-single-click for me ?? o_O
>> >
>> > --
>> > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 7:10 PM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > We can't have a NuttX-specific AI policy. This polity is something
>> that must be consistent across all Apache projects. Remember, Apache owns
>> this code!
>> > >
>> > > The are some Apache discussions and fragments of policies that are
>> worth considering. We should do nothing inconsistent with the final Apache
>> policies. Whatever Godot uses is irrelevant.
>> > >
>> > > This is what I was able to find in a a single google:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > *
>> > > Some general discussion:
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/l0n4w86v1o5cwkqpqtf2q7lb7zdyrymf
>> > > *
>> > > Apache VP of Legal Affairs:
>> https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/why-generative-ai-guidance-is-essential-to-contributors-of-open-source
>> > > *
>> > > ASF Generative Tooling Guidance:
>> https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
>> > >
>> > > I haven't really absorbed all of this. My point is that we must
>> follow the same rules and principles as the Apache Software Foundation on
>> this.
>> > >
>> > > Greg
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________
>> > > From: Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>
>> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:47 AM
>> > > To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
>> > > Subject: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
>> > >
>> > > 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/
>>
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>.
Yes, the ASF policy requires that any code which is contributed has to be
guaranteed to be compatible with the project's open source licensing. With
substantially generated PRs, this is impossible. AI used as an assistant is
much more compatible with this policy.
I think we haven't had too much trouble identifying the completely
generated PRs so far, but that is a cool project and thank you for sharing
it!
Matteo
On Sun, Jul 5, 2026 at 8:37 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's worth noting that the ASF already has a policy on the use of
> AI-generated code: https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html,
> which may be a useful starting point for shaping any project-level policy.
>
> On the question of AI-generated "slop" making it through review: one
> potentially interesting approach is using AI to help detect AI-generated
> contributions. There's a new ASF project doing exactly that, which I am
> involved in, called Magpie (https://magpie.apache.org/), which may be
> worth a look.
>
> Kind regards,
> Justin
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
It's worth noting that the ASF already has a policy on the use of AI-generated code: https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html, which may be a useful starting point for shaping any project-level policy.
On the question of AI-generated "slop" making it through review: one potentially interesting approach is using AI to help detect AI-generated contributions. There's a new ASF project doing exactly that, which I am involved in, called Magpie (https://magpie.apache.org/), which may be worth a look.
Kind regards,
Justin
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>.
Unfortunately the use of generative AI tools is no longer just a personal
choice when they are used in open source projects where many people are all
collaborating. Which is why we need a discussion and official policy as a
community.
Many maintainers do not want to read AI-generated PR descriptions or
comments; they are often needlessly verbose, they can contain false
information/logs that "look correct" and often times it takes a lot of back
and forth to get answers to questions because AI models struggle to
understand what is being communicated in some cases. I had an interaction
not long with an entirely AI-opened issue and comment replies:
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/19135. This is a waste of my time
and it is incredibly frustrating to read. It should not be allowed at all.
It is basic respect to communicate yourself with your fellow humans if they
are giving you their time for a review. Of course, machine translations
don't fall under this umbrella which is why they are excepted in the policy.
Then there is the code itself, which can also contain hallucinations which
"look correct". That makes it harder to review. AI (just as humans do) can
create non-idiomatic or very verbose code as well. This is also harder to
review. There are also the copyright issues where AI produces code that
isn't compatible with our licenses. Then there are also cases where
contributors fully generate AI PRs and admit they were not able to do the
task without the AI and were heavily reliant on its output for their patch.
This creates a ton of code that is entirely unmaintainable, because the
contributor doesn't understand the patch they're submitting. I know that
isn't the common case, and we have many contributors who are using AI
responsibly, but we are still getting patches like this and we need a
policy about it. I believe the Godot policy addresses all of these concerns
and is not particularly restrictive towards those contributors who have
already been using AI responsibly (for large refactors, as a guiding
assistant, etc.). It gives us moderation ability for these extreme cases,
it does not forbid the use of AI as a blanket ban.
Matteo
On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 1:35 PM <jl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree on what Xiao said. IMHO the human is always reposible for the
> code, regardless of the tools used. Adding tags about the code creation
> tools doesn't seem to add any valuable info. The code needs to be good
> quality and the responsibility is on the author anyhow.
>
> Having said that, I don't strongly oppose adding thise tags, it just looks
> useless to me.
>
> Xiang Xiao kirjoitti perjantai 3. heinäkuuta 2026:
> > Actually, I don't care the code is created by humans or LLM, all patches
> > are equal to me and must pass my quality bar before I approve it.
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 2:44 PM Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Whether or how a developer uses AI is a personal decision. What I am
> > > against is creating a rule to forbid the patch the developer generated
> with
> > > AI.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 2:33 PM Michał Łyszczek <
> michal.lyszczek@bofc.pl>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 2026-07-02 18:54:44, Sebastien Lorquet wrote:
> > >> > Everything about "ai" is wrong and problematic, even if you want to
> > >> tolerate
> > >> > one aspect, it stays unacceptaoone has asked me either, but I 100%
> > >> agree with those.
> > >> >
> > >> > -quality is unacceptable,
> > >> >
> > >> > -environnemental impact is unacceptable
> > >> >
> > >> > -ethics are unacceptable
> > >> >
> > >> > -it is completely unsustainable on the financial and industrial
> levels
> > >> >
> > >> > -above all, it renders humans incapable and addicted to a
> centralized
> > >> system
> > >> > owned by billionaires
> > >> >
> > >> > -it destroys communities and cultures
> > >>
> > >> Noone has asked me, but I agree with Sebastian here and I am rather
> > >> against using LLMs myself too.
> > >>
> > >> I don't like that my code is used by corporations to create their
> product
> > >> any
> > >> money that they use to addict you to the tech. It's one thing when a
> > >> human reads
> > >> my GPL code and uses very similar code to implement something in the
> > >> company. He
> > >> did benefit from it somehow, he got smarter, maybe he saved his job,
> > >> whatever,
> > >> but he's the primary benefactor.
> > >>
> > >> With LLM? Company benefits first. And the dude may even loose his job
> > >> because of
> > >> LLM. And I want for people first to benefit from my work - not
> > >> corporations.
> > >>
> > >> Also LLM makes you dumber. Especially if you are learning. I use LLM
> > >> sometimes
> > >> as search engine or example generator. But even with that, I can feel
> my
> > >> brain
> > >> getting lazy and poking me to use LLM for that quick solution. From
> one
> > >> point
> > >> it's cool to get solution faster, but on the other hand, we will loose
> > >> ability
> > >> to solve problems on our own.
> > >>
> > >> I can see benefits of LLM. Like the time you guys used it to refactor
> > >> stm32
> > >> source file to be more structured. Yeah, I think that's good use for
> LLM.
> > >> But
> > >> there are just much more bad use cases.
> > >>
> > >> Can't speak for anyone, but I avoid LLMs mainly for my and my brain's
> > >> sake. I
> > >> believe LLM will cause more harm than good. Especially in the future,
> when
> > >> experienced programmers pre-llm era will start to die out.
> > >>
> > >
> >
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by jl...@gmail.com.
I agree on what Xiao said. IMHO the human is always reposible for the code, regardless of the tools used. Adding tags about the code creation tools doesn't seem to add any valuable info. The code needs to be good quality and the responsibility is on the author anyhow.
Having said that, I don't strongly oppose adding thise tags, it just looks useless to me.
Xiang Xiao kirjoitti perjantai 3. heinäkuuta 2026:
> Actually, I don't care the code is created by humans or LLM, all patches
> are equal to me and must pass my quality bar before I approve it.
>
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 2:44 PM Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Whether or how a developer uses AI is a personal decision. What I am
> > against is creating a rule to forbid the patch the developer generated with
> > AI.
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 2:33 PM Michał Łyszczek <mi...@bofc.pl>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2026-07-02 18:54:44, Sebastien Lorquet wrote:
> >> > Everything about "ai" is wrong and problematic, even if you want to
> >> tolerate
> >> > one aspect, it stays unacceptaoone has asked me either, but I 100%
> >> agree with those.
> >> >
> >> > -quality is unacceptable,
> >> >
> >> > -environnemental impact is unacceptable
> >> >
> >> > -ethics are unacceptable
> >> >
> >> > -it is completely unsustainable on the financial and industrial levels
> >> >
> >> > -above all, it renders humans incapable and addicted to a centralized
> >> system
> >> > owned by billionaires
> >> >
> >> > -it destroys communities and cultures
> >>
> >> Noone has asked me, but I agree with Sebastian here and I am rather
> >> against using LLMs myself too.
> >>
> >> I don't like that my code is used by corporations to create their product
> >> any
> >> money that they use to addict you to the tech. It's one thing when a
> >> human reads
> >> my GPL code and uses very similar code to implement something in the
> >> company. He
> >> did benefit from it somehow, he got smarter, maybe he saved his job,
> >> whatever,
> >> but he's the primary benefactor.
> >>
> >> With LLM? Company benefits first. And the dude may even loose his job
> >> because of
> >> LLM. And I want for people first to benefit from my work - not
> >> corporations.
> >>
> >> Also LLM makes you dumber. Especially if you are learning. I use LLM
> >> sometimes
> >> as search engine or example generator. But even with that, I can feel my
> >> brain
> >> getting lazy and poking me to use LLM for that quick solution. From one
> >> point
> >> it's cool to get solution faster, but on the other hand, we will loose
> >> ability
> >> to solve problems on our own.
> >>
> >> I can see benefits of LLM. Like the time you guys used it to refactor
> >> stm32
> >> source file to be more structured. Yeah, I think that's good use for LLM.
> >> But
> >> there are just much more bad use cases.
> >>
> >> Can't speak for anyone, but I avoid LLMs mainly for my and my brain's
> >> sake. I
> >> believe LLM will cause more harm than good. Especially in the future, when
> >> experienced programmers pre-llm era will start to die out.
> >>
> >
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com>.
Actually, I don't care the code is created by humans or LLM, all patches
are equal to me and must pass my quality bar before I approve it.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 2:44 PM Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whether or how a developer uses AI is a personal decision. What I am
> against is creating a rule to forbid the patch the developer generated with
> AI.
>
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 2:33 PM Michał Łyszczek <mi...@bofc.pl>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2026-07-02 18:54:44, Sebastien Lorquet wrote:
>> > Everything about "ai" is wrong and problematic, even if you want to
>> tolerate
>> > one aspect, it stays unacceptaoone has asked me either, but I 100%
>> agree with those.
>> >
>> > -quality is unacceptable,
>> >
>> > -environnemental impact is unacceptable
>> >
>> > -ethics are unacceptable
>> >
>> > -it is completely unsustainable on the financial and industrial levels
>> >
>> > -above all, it renders humans incapable and addicted to a centralized
>> system
>> > owned by billionaires
>> >
>> > -it destroys communities and cultures
>>
>> Noone has asked me, but I agree with Sebastian here and I am rather
>> against using LLMs myself too.
>>
>> I don't like that my code is used by corporations to create their product
>> any
>> money that they use to addict you to the tech. It's one thing when a
>> human reads
>> my GPL code and uses very similar code to implement something in the
>> company. He
>> did benefit from it somehow, he got smarter, maybe he saved his job,
>> whatever,
>> but he's the primary benefactor.
>>
>> With LLM? Company benefits first. And the dude may even loose his job
>> because of
>> LLM. And I want for people first to benefit from my work - not
>> corporations.
>>
>> Also LLM makes you dumber. Especially if you are learning. I use LLM
>> sometimes
>> as search engine or example generator. But even with that, I can feel my
>> brain
>> getting lazy and poking me to use LLM for that quick solution. From one
>> point
>> it's cool to get solution faster, but on the other hand, we will loose
>> ability
>> to solve problems on our own.
>>
>> I can see benefits of LLM. Like the time you guys used it to refactor
>> stm32
>> source file to be more structured. Yeah, I think that's good use for LLM.
>> But
>> there are just much more bad use cases.
>>
>> Can't speak for anyone, but I avoid LLMs mainly for my and my brain's
>> sake. I
>> believe LLM will cause more harm than good. Especially in the future, when
>> experienced programmers pre-llm era will start to die out.
>>
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com>.
Whether or how a developer uses AI is a personal decision. What I am
against is creating a rule to forbid the patch the developer generated with
AI.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 2:33 PM Michał Łyszczek <mi...@bofc.pl>
wrote:
> On 2026-07-02 18:54:44, Sebastien Lorquet wrote:
> > Everything about "ai" is wrong and problematic, even if you want to
> tolerate
> > one aspect, it stays unacceptaoone has asked me either, but I 100% agree
> with those.
> >
> > -quality is unacceptable,
> >
> > -environnemental impact is unacceptable
> >
> > -ethics are unacceptable
> >
> > -it is completely unsustainable on the financial and industrial levels
> >
> > -above all, it renders humans incapable and addicted to a centralized
> system
> > owned by billionaires
> >
> > -it destroys communities and cultures
>
> Noone has asked me, but I agree with Sebastian here and I am rather
> against using LLMs myself too.
>
> I don't like that my code is used by corporations to create their product
> any
> money that they use to addict you to the tech. It's one thing when a human
> reads
> my GPL code and uses very similar code to implement something in the
> company. He
> did benefit from it somehow, he got smarter, maybe he saved his job,
> whatever,
> but he's the primary benefactor.
>
> With LLM? Company benefits first. And the dude may even loose his job
> because of
> LLM. And I want for people first to benefit from my work - not
> corporations.
>
> Also LLM makes you dumber. Especially if you are learning. I use LLM
> sometimes
> as search engine or example generator. But even with that, I can feel my
> brain
> getting lazy and poking me to use LLM for that quick solution. From one
> point
> it's cool to get solution faster, but on the other hand, we will loose
> ability
> to solve problems on our own.
>
> I can see benefits of LLM. Like the time you guys used it to refactor stm32
> source file to be more structured. Yeah, I think that's good use for LLM.
> But
> there are just much more bad use cases.
>
> Can't speak for anyone, but I avoid LLMs mainly for my and my brain's
> sake. I
> believe LLM will cause more harm than good. Especially in the future, when
> experienced programmers pre-llm era will start to die out.
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Alin Jerpelea <je...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
many projects already enforce the requirement for "Assisted-by:" tag in the
commit message if the conteibution has used an AI tool along the creation
process.
I think that as a first step we should enforce the same in the contributor
guidelines
Best regards
Alin
On Fri, 3 Jul 2026, 09:33 Michał Łyszczek, <mi...@bofc.pl> wrote:
> On 2026-07-02 18:54:44, Sebastien Lorquet wrote:
> > Everything about "ai" is wrong and problematic, even if you want to
> tolerate
> > one aspect, it stays unacceptaoone has asked me either, but I 100% agree
> with those.
> >
> > -quality is unacceptable,
> >
> > -environnemental impact is unacceptable
> >
> > -ethics are unacceptable
> >
> > -it is completely unsustainable on the financial and industrial levels
> >
> > -above all, it renders humans incapable and addicted to a centralized
> system
> > owned by billionaires
> >
> > -it destroys communities and cultures
>
> Noone has asked me, but I agree with Sebastian here and I am rather
> against using LLMs myself too.
>
> I don't like that my code is used by corporations to create their product
> any
> money that they use to addict you to the tech. It's one thing when a human
> reads
> my GPL code and uses very similar code to implement something in the
> company. He
> did benefit from it somehow, he got smarter, maybe he saved his job,
> whatever,
> but he's the primary benefactor.
>
> With LLM? Company benefits first. And the dude may even loose his job
> because of
> LLM. And I want for people first to benefit from my work - not
> corporations.
>
> Also LLM makes you dumber. Especially if you are learning. I use LLM
> sometimes
> as search engine or example generator. But even with that, I can feel my
> brain
> getting lazy and poking me to use LLM for that quick solution. From one
> point
> it's cool to get solution faster, but on the other hand, we will loose
> ability
> to solve problems on our own.
>
> I can see benefits of LLM. Like the time you guys used it to refactor stm32
> source file to be more structured. Yeah, I think that's good use for LLM.
> But
> there are just much more bad use cases.
>
> Can't speak for anyone, but I avoid LLMs mainly for my and my brain's
> sake. I
> believe LLM will cause more harm than good. Especially in the future, when
> experienced programmers pre-llm era will start to die out.
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Michał Łyszczek <mi...@bofc.pl>.
On 2026-07-02 18:54:44, Sebastien Lorquet wrote:
> Everything about "ai" is wrong and problematic, even if you want to tolerate
> one aspect, it stays unacceptaoone has asked me either, but I 100% agree with those.
>
> -quality is unacceptable,
>
> -environnemental impact is unacceptable
>
> -ethics are unacceptable
>
> -it is completely unsustainable on the financial and industrial levels
>
> -above all, it renders humans incapable and addicted to a centralized system
> owned by billionaires
>
> -it destroys communities and cultures
Noone has asked me, but I agree with Sebastian here and I am rather
against using LLMs myself too.
I don't like that my code is used by corporations to create their product any
money that they use to addict you to the tech. It's one thing when a human reads
my GPL code and uses very similar code to implement something in the company. He
did benefit from it somehow, he got smarter, maybe he saved his job, whatever,
but he's the primary benefactor.
With LLM? Company benefits first. And the dude may even loose his job because of
LLM. And I want for people first to benefit from my work - not corporations.
Also LLM makes you dumber. Especially if you are learning. I use LLM sometimes
as search engine or example generator. But even with that, I can feel my brain
getting lazy and poking me to use LLM for that quick solution. From one point
it's cool to get solution faster, but on the other hand, we will loose ability
to solve problems on our own.
I can see benefits of LLM. Like the time you guys used it to refactor stm32
source file to be more structured. Yeah, I think that's good use for LLM. But
there are just much more bad use cases.
Can't speak for anyone, but I avoid LLMs mainly for my and my brain's sake. I
believe LLM will cause more harm than good. Especially in the future, when
experienced programmers pre-llm era will start to die out.
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>.
Thanks everyone again for the comments! :)
It's important to note that although the ASF has generative tooling
guidelines, they are just stated as recommendations and therefore don't put
restrictions on the kinds of policies we can implement for NuttX, if I am
understanding it correctly. It is ironic that people in this thread have
already used AI to write their responses :)
I want to note that the Godot policy is not a blanket ban on AI use, it
gives us tools to moderate "slop-level" PRs. This isn't the same as using
AI as a guiding tool; it's mostly geared towards generating substantial
parts of the code. I have used AI before, and I do agree that there is a
difference between vibe-coding and using AI as a tool to create something
of quality! The policy adoption is to give us some moderation tools (and a
warning to contributors) to help prevent the vibe-coding approach, which is
the primary issue. Also, nothing wrong with being anti-copyright! This is
why I open-source all my work; I love FOSS. However, I do take issue with
these ridiculous technocrats profiting off of free volunteer work used to
train their models. And then also re-copyrighting the output to sell it
back to others without credit. I don't think we should be part of that as a
project, which is why I think there should be caution regarding how we
license AI output. I personally do not think it's possible for us to safely
distribute it under Apache 2.0. Even the ASF requires the contributor to
guarantee copyright compatibility, but that is an impossible task for AI
output.
Apache does recommend that commits with AI generation should be tagged
"Generated-by: ". I think we can adopt that easily, and it would make it
easier to backpedal if there are later updates to the ASF generative
tooling policy.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 12:55 PM Sebastien Lorquet <se...@lorquet.fr>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I do not ask anyone to share my opinion, but since you asked...
>
> I have seen enough slop everywhere on the web to confirm that I WILL
> NEVER TOUCH any of this.
>
> And I claim that I dont need to use it to make that judgement.
>
> Everything about "ai" is wrong and problematic, even if you want to
> tolerate one aspect, it stays unacceptable.
>
> -quality is unacceptable,
>
> -environnemental impact is unacceptable
>
> -ethics are unacceptable
>
> -it is completely unsustainable on the financial and industrial levels
>
> -above all, it renders humans incapable and addicted to a centralized
> system owned by billionaires
>
> -it destroys communities and cultures
>
>
> So, no thank you.
>
> Sebastien
>
>
> On 7/2/26 15:12, raiden00pl wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, have people who are against AI in this conversation
> > actually used AI? From some of the comments, I see they have little
> > idea what an AI workflow looks like and that AI writes code on its own
> > without much human intervention or creativity. Vibe coding and creating
> > high-quality code with AI are two different things.
> >
> > The only concern I see with AI is the copyright issue. But that's not the
> > problem
> > of this project, but a global problem of how copyright is approached in
> > the AI era. As an anti-copyright advocate, I'm glad that technological
> > advancement
> > may finally put an end to this absurdity (infoanarchist here).
> >
> > czw., 2 lip 2026 o 15:04 Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> >
> >> Hi Tomek,
> >>
> >> "therefore is owned by the AI owner" that is wrong, none AI supplier is
> >> owner of the result code.
> >>
> >> Please read the ASF links that Greg sent, you will find reference to:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
> >>
> >> The problem is the opposite: all code generated by AI is "public
> domain",
> >> you cannot say it is your copyright and the AI LLM owner cannot say it
> is
> >> their copyright.
> >>
> >> If you consider that all AI LLM are trained with knowledge created by
> >> humanity, this decision seems fair.
> >>
> >> Everybody using AI is just like the "Monkey" pressing the capture
> Button.
> >> Every project receiving that code is the news media publishing the
> Monkey
> >> picture.
> >>
> >> BR,
> >>
> >> Alan
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 5:58 PM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think we had this discussion some time ago.
> >>>
> >>> The biggest issue here is copyright claims and licensing of the fully
> >>> generated code, noted by the FreeBSD project, we need Apache guides
> >>> here true. But imagine someone pushes Apache 2.0 licensed code that
> >>> was generated by AI and therefore is owned by the AI owner and cannot
> >>> be attributed Apache license.
> >>>
> >>> We want real passionates behind the code. This is that simple.
> >>>
> >>> Below is a reminder of proposition for AGENTS.md and/or Contributing
> >>> Guide - we may have something like this just as general set of rules
> >>> that are project specific - just as code formatting right?
> >>>
> >>> 1.18. AI and Agents.
> >>>
> >>> 1.18.1. We expect authentic engagement in our community. NuttX comes
> >>> from years of hard work, passion, and personal dedication of
> >>> individuals from around the world. We welcome and respect people with
> >>> similar mindset. But we do not tolerate shortcuts and we have clearly
> >>> defined enemies (see The Inviolable Principles of NuttX).
> >>>
> >>> 1.18.2. AI tools may do some of the work parts for you but it will not
> >>> think for you. Treat them as your helpers but only in tasks which you
> >>> already have experience so you can understand, verify, and explain the
> >>> results details to anyone else on your own. We use tools to save our
> >>> precious time. Without prior experience and perfect understanding the
> >>> outcome is quite opposite - everyone's time is wasted - and we want to
> >>> avoid that.
> >>>
> >>> 1.18.3. Using AI tools for your internal work like brainstorming,
> >>> prototyping, finding information and examples, text correction,
> >>> verification against contributing guidelines and code formatting, is
> >>> fine, but the final submission shared with the project must be result
> >>> of your own work and intellect. This effort makes us grow, develop
> >>> individual skills, and provides experience necessary for top quality
> >>> results.
> >>>
> >>> 1.18.4. Using AI tools to generate a code, git commits, pull requests,
> >>> or any communication channel messages, even with minor edits to
> >>> pretend it's your own work, is unacceptable. This contradicts the
> >>> Apache Software Foundation contribution rules [citation_needed]. This
> >>> also imposes serious copyright and licensing infringement risks
> >>> because very often AI generated content is copyrighted by the AI owner
> >>> even if you created the result. If this is your first or following
> >>> contribution you will be banned.
> >>>
> >>> 1.18.5. We reserve right to ban/block/remove user accounts that are
> >>> considered malicious/spam/bot/ai activity that break any of the
> >>> presented rules.
> >>>
> >>> 1.18.6. The only exception here is for our own internal and approved
> >>> testing or automation tools that may, but usually do not, have some
> >>> sort of reporting autonomy, that we have created ourselves in
> >>> accordance with presented rules.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 8:40 PM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> >>>> Hmm, we just got a good-bad-example, take a look at:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19249 - this adds new board
> >>>> rpi-pico-2-w but also breaks other areas boards etc. Matteo closed it
> >>>> as ai slop right away.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19250 - then this PR showed up
> as
> >>>> fix very quickly after, with less issues, focused on the board added,
> >>>> and author honestly admitted all code was generated by AI.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thus my response in the PR but also here:
> >>>>
> >>>>> @xiaoxiang781216: We need accept the trend: all developers will
> >>> utilize AI to generate material (code, commit, documentation, pr)
> sooner
> >> or
> >>> later.
> >>>> @xiaoxiang781216 I agree with @linguini1 here, and looking at the
> >>>> mailing list, most of the community - we want to keep NuttX a project
> >>>> developed by a community of passionates, professionals, and
> >>>> enthusiasts.
> >>>>
> >>>> "all developers will utilize AI to generate material (code, commit,
> >>>> documentation, pr) sooner or later" - yes we cannot avoid that, but we
> >>>> do NOT need to "accept the trend", we may just acknowledge the problem
> >>>> but not become part of the problem :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> This is similar to "rewrite everything in Rust" "trend" - we may
> >>>> acknowledge the problem and still not become part of the problem :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Let people rewrite everything in Rust, but from scratch, away from
> >>>> here. The same with AI :-)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree with Matteo that we should avoid AI slop. We had many bad
> >>>> examples already, costing us time and energy that could go intro
> >>>> something more constructive. Many Open-Source projects acknowledge
> >>>> this problem and do not want to be part of the problem. We want "our"
> >>>> projects to stay "ours" in terms of fun, code, mistakes, learning
> >>>> curve, experiments, and the overall the community of enthusiasts.
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the fun in rewrite-whole-NuttX-with-a-single-click for me ??
> >> o_O
> >>>> --
> >>>> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 7:10 PM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> We can't have a NuttX-specific AI policy. This polity is something
> >>> that must be consistent across all Apache projects. Remember, Apache
> >> owns
> >>> this code!
> >>>>> The are some Apache discussions and fragments of policies that are
> >>> worth considering. We should do nothing inconsistent with the final
> >> Apache
> >>> policies. Whatever Godot uses is irrelevant.
> >>>>> This is what I was able to find in a a single google:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *
> >>>>> Some general discussion:
> >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/l0n4w86v1o5cwkqpqtf2q7lb7zdyrymf
> >>>>> *
> >>>>> Apache VP of Legal Affairs:
> >>
> https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/why-generative-ai-guidance-is-essential-to-contributors-of-open-source
> >>>>> *
> >>>>> ASF Generative Tooling Guidance:
> >>> https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
> >>>>> I haven't really absorbed all of this. My point is that we must
> >>> follow the same rules and principles as the Apache Software Foundation
> on
> >>> this.
> >>>>> Greg
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>> From: Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:47 AM
> >>>>> To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
> >>>>> Subject: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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/
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Sebastien Lorquet <se...@lorquet.fr>.
Hello,
I do not ask anyone to share my opinion, but since you asked...
I have seen enough slop everywhere on the web to confirm that I WILL
NEVER TOUCH any of this.
And I claim that I dont need to use it to make that judgement.
Everything about "ai" is wrong and problematic, even if you want to
tolerate one aspect, it stays unacceptable.
-quality is unacceptable,
-environnemental impact is unacceptable
-ethics are unacceptable
-it is completely unsustainable on the financial and industrial levels
-above all, it renders humans incapable and addicted to a centralized
system owned by billionaires
-it destroys communities and cultures
So, no thank you.
Sebastien
On 7/2/26 15:12, raiden00pl wrote:
> Out of curiosity, have people who are against AI in this conversation
> actually used AI? From some of the comments, I see they have little
> idea what an AI workflow looks like and that AI writes code on its own
> without much human intervention or creativity. Vibe coding and creating
> high-quality code with AI are two different things.
>
> The only concern I see with AI is the copyright issue. But that's not the
> problem
> of this project, but a global problem of how copyright is approached in
> the AI era. As an anti-copyright advocate, I'm glad that technological
> advancement
> may finally put an end to this absurdity (infoanarchist here).
>
> czw., 2 lip 2026 o 15:04 Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
>
>> Hi Tomek,
>>
>> "therefore is owned by the AI owner" that is wrong, none AI supplier is
>> owner of the result code.
>>
>> Please read the ASF links that Greg sent, you will find reference to:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
>>
>> The problem is the opposite: all code generated by AI is "public domain",
>> you cannot say it is your copyright and the AI LLM owner cannot say it is
>> their copyright.
>>
>> If you consider that all AI LLM are trained with knowledge created by
>> humanity, this decision seems fair.
>>
>> Everybody using AI is just like the "Monkey" pressing the capture Button.
>> Every project receiving that code is the news media publishing the Monkey
>> picture.
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 5:58 PM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
>>
>>> I think we had this discussion some time ago.
>>>
>>> The biggest issue here is copyright claims and licensing of the fully
>>> generated code, noted by the FreeBSD project, we need Apache guides
>>> here true. But imagine someone pushes Apache 2.0 licensed code that
>>> was generated by AI and therefore is owned by the AI owner and cannot
>>> be attributed Apache license.
>>>
>>> We want real passionates behind the code. This is that simple.
>>>
>>> Below is a reminder of proposition for AGENTS.md and/or Contributing
>>> Guide - we may have something like this just as general set of rules
>>> that are project specific - just as code formatting right?
>>>
>>> 1.18. AI and Agents.
>>>
>>> 1.18.1. We expect authentic engagement in our community. NuttX comes
>>> from years of hard work, passion, and personal dedication of
>>> individuals from around the world. We welcome and respect people with
>>> similar mindset. But we do not tolerate shortcuts and we have clearly
>>> defined enemies (see The Inviolable Principles of NuttX).
>>>
>>> 1.18.2. AI tools may do some of the work parts for you but it will not
>>> think for you. Treat them as your helpers but only in tasks which you
>>> already have experience so you can understand, verify, and explain the
>>> results details to anyone else on your own. We use tools to save our
>>> precious time. Without prior experience and perfect understanding the
>>> outcome is quite opposite - everyone's time is wasted - and we want to
>>> avoid that.
>>>
>>> 1.18.3. Using AI tools for your internal work like brainstorming,
>>> prototyping, finding information and examples, text correction,
>>> verification against contributing guidelines and code formatting, is
>>> fine, but the final submission shared with the project must be result
>>> of your own work and intellect. This effort makes us grow, develop
>>> individual skills, and provides experience necessary for top quality
>>> results.
>>>
>>> 1.18.4. Using AI tools to generate a code, git commits, pull requests,
>>> or any communication channel messages, even with minor edits to
>>> pretend it's your own work, is unacceptable. This contradicts the
>>> Apache Software Foundation contribution rules [citation_needed]. This
>>> also imposes serious copyright and licensing infringement risks
>>> because very often AI generated content is copyrighted by the AI owner
>>> even if you created the result. If this is your first or following
>>> contribution you will be banned.
>>>
>>> 1.18.5. We reserve right to ban/block/remove user accounts that are
>>> considered malicious/spam/bot/ai activity that break any of the
>>> presented rules.
>>>
>>> 1.18.6. The only exception here is for our own internal and approved
>>> testing or automation tools that may, but usually do not, have some
>>> sort of reporting autonomy, that we have created ourselves in
>>> accordance with presented rules.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 8:40 PM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
>>>> Hmm, we just got a good-bad-example, take a look at:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19249 - this adds new board
>>>> rpi-pico-2-w but also breaks other areas boards etc. Matteo closed it
>>>> as ai slop right away.
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19250 - then this PR showed up as
>>>> fix very quickly after, with less issues, focused on the board added,
>>>> and author honestly admitted all code was generated by AI.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thus my response in the PR but also here:
>>>>
>>>>> @xiaoxiang781216: We need accept the trend: all developers will
>>> utilize AI to generate material (code, commit, documentation, pr) sooner
>> or
>>> later.
>>>> @xiaoxiang781216 I agree with @linguini1 here, and looking at the
>>>> mailing list, most of the community - we want to keep NuttX a project
>>>> developed by a community of passionates, professionals, and
>>>> enthusiasts.
>>>>
>>>> "all developers will utilize AI to generate material (code, commit,
>>>> documentation, pr) sooner or later" - yes we cannot avoid that, but we
>>>> do NOT need to "accept the trend", we may just acknowledge the problem
>>>> but not become part of the problem :-)
>>>>
>>>> This is similar to "rewrite everything in Rust" "trend" - we may
>>>> acknowledge the problem and still not become part of the problem :-)
>>>>
>>>> Let people rewrite everything in Rust, but from scratch, away from
>>>> here. The same with AI :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Matteo that we should avoid AI slop. We had many bad
>>>> examples already, costing us time and energy that could go intro
>>>> something more constructive. Many Open-Source projects acknowledge
>>>> this problem and do not want to be part of the problem. We want "our"
>>>> projects to stay "ours" in terms of fun, code, mistakes, learning
>>>> curve, experiments, and the overall the community of enthusiasts.
>>>>
>>>> What is the fun in rewrite-whole-NuttX-with-a-single-click for me ??
>> o_O
>>>> --
>>>> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 7:10 PM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> We can't have a NuttX-specific AI policy. This polity is something
>>> that must be consistent across all Apache projects. Remember, Apache
>> owns
>>> this code!
>>>>> The are some Apache discussions and fragments of policies that are
>>> worth considering. We should do nothing inconsistent with the final
>> Apache
>>> policies. Whatever Godot uses is irrelevant.
>>>>> This is what I was able to find in a a single google:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>> Some general discussion:
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/l0n4w86v1o5cwkqpqtf2q7lb7zdyrymf
>>>>> *
>>>>> Apache VP of Legal Affairs:
>> https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/why-generative-ai-guidance-is-essential-to-contributors-of-open-source
>>>>> *
>>>>> ASF Generative Tooling Guidance:
>>> https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
>>>>> I haven't really absorbed all of this. My point is that we must
>>> follow the same rules and principles as the Apache Software Foundation on
>>> this.
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:47 AM
>>>>> To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
>>>>> Subject: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info>.
I know people like Xiang who use AI as supporting tool, as you said
creating high-quality results. But we are talking about "ai slop" or
"ai vibe coding" here specifically.
Regarding copyrights here and licensing I agree that this makes
Open-Source projects fighting each other rather than creating common
reusable code base for various projects to grow - simplest example
here are device drivers created for one license/OS that are not
present or partially present on other license/OS and that results in
incomplete implementation for everyone :-(
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 1:13 PM raiden00pl <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity, have people who are against AI in this conversation
> actually used AI? From some of the comments, I see they have little
> idea what an AI workflow looks like and that AI writes code on its own
> without much human intervention or creativity. Vibe coding and creating
> high-quality code with AI are two different things.
>
> The only concern I see with AI is the copyright issue. But that's not the
> problem
> of this project, but a global problem of how copyright is approached in
> the AI era. As an anti-copyright advocate, I'm glad that technological
> advancement
> may finally put an end to this absurdity (infoanarchist here).
>
> czw., 2 lip 2026 o 15:04 Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Tomek,
> >
> > "therefore is owned by the AI owner" that is wrong, none AI supplier is
> > owner of the result code.
> >
> > Please read the ASF links that Greg sent, you will find reference to:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
> >
> > The problem is the opposite: all code generated by AI is "public domain",
> > you cannot say it is your copyright and the AI LLM owner cannot say it is
> > their copyright.
> >
> > If you consider that all AI LLM are trained with knowledge created by
> > humanity, this decision seems fair.
> >
> > Everybody using AI is just like the "Monkey" pressing the capture Button.
> > Every project receiving that code is the news media publishing the Monkey
> > picture.
> >
> > BR,
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 5:58 PM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> >
> > > I think we had this discussion some time ago.
> > >
> > > The biggest issue here is copyright claims and licensing of the fully
> > > generated code, noted by the FreeBSD project, we need Apache guides
> > > here true. But imagine someone pushes Apache 2.0 licensed code that
> > > was generated by AI and therefore is owned by the AI owner and cannot
> > > be attributed Apache license.
> > >
> > > We want real passionates behind the code. This is that simple.
> > >
> > > Below is a reminder of proposition for AGENTS.md and/or Contributing
> > > Guide - we may have something like this just as general set of rules
> > > that are project specific - just as code formatting right?
> > >
> > > 1.18. AI and Agents.
> > >
> > > 1.18.1. We expect authentic engagement in our community. NuttX comes
> > > from years of hard work, passion, and personal dedication of
> > > individuals from around the world. We welcome and respect people with
> > > similar mindset. But we do not tolerate shortcuts and we have clearly
> > > defined enemies (see The Inviolable Principles of NuttX).
> > >
> > > 1.18.2. AI tools may do some of the work parts for you but it will not
> > > think for you. Treat them as your helpers but only in tasks which you
> > > already have experience so you can understand, verify, and explain the
> > > results details to anyone else on your own. We use tools to save our
> > > precious time. Without prior experience and perfect understanding the
> > > outcome is quite opposite - everyone's time is wasted - and we want to
> > > avoid that.
> > >
> > > 1.18.3. Using AI tools for your internal work like brainstorming,
> > > prototyping, finding information and examples, text correction,
> > > verification against contributing guidelines and code formatting, is
> > > fine, but the final submission shared with the project must be result
> > > of your own work and intellect. This effort makes us grow, develop
> > > individual skills, and provides experience necessary for top quality
> > > results.
> > >
> > > 1.18.4. Using AI tools to generate a code, git commits, pull requests,
> > > or any communication channel messages, even with minor edits to
> > > pretend it's your own work, is unacceptable. This contradicts the
> > > Apache Software Foundation contribution rules [citation_needed]. This
> > > also imposes serious copyright and licensing infringement risks
> > > because very often AI generated content is copyrighted by the AI owner
> > > even if you created the result. If this is your first or following
> > > contribution you will be banned.
> > >
> > > 1.18.5. We reserve right to ban/block/remove user accounts that are
> > > considered malicious/spam/bot/ai activity that break any of the
> > > presented rules.
> > >
> > > 1.18.6. The only exception here is for our own internal and approved
> > > testing or automation tools that may, but usually do not, have some
> > > sort of reporting autonomy, that we have created ourselves in
> > > accordance with presented rules.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 8:40 PM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, we just got a good-bad-example, take a look at:
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19249 - this adds new board
> > > > rpi-pico-2-w but also breaks other areas boards etc. Matteo closed it
> > > > as ai slop right away.
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19250 - then this PR showed up as
> > > > fix very quickly after, with less issues, focused on the board added,
> > > > and author honestly admitted all code was generated by AI.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thus my response in the PR but also here:
> > > >
> > > > > @xiaoxiang781216: We need accept the trend: all developers will
> > > utilize AI to generate material (code, commit, documentation, pr) sooner
> > or
> > > later.
> > > >
> > > > @xiaoxiang781216 I agree with @linguini1 here, and looking at the
> > > > mailing list, most of the community - we want to keep NuttX a project
> > > > developed by a community of passionates, professionals, and
> > > > enthusiasts.
> > > >
> > > > "all developers will utilize AI to generate material (code, commit,
> > > > documentation, pr) sooner or later" - yes we cannot avoid that, but we
> > > > do NOT need to "accept the trend", we may just acknowledge the problem
> > > > but not become part of the problem :-)
> > > >
> > > > This is similar to "rewrite everything in Rust" "trend" - we may
> > > > acknowledge the problem and still not become part of the problem :-)
> > > >
> > > > Let people rewrite everything in Rust, but from scratch, away from
> > > > here. The same with AI :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Matteo that we should avoid AI slop. We had many bad
> > > > examples already, costing us time and energy that could go intro
> > > > something more constructive. Many Open-Source projects acknowledge
> > > > this problem and do not want to be part of the problem. We want "our"
> > > > projects to stay "ours" in terms of fun, code, mistakes, learning
> > > > curve, experiments, and the overall the community of enthusiasts.
> > > >
> > > > What is the fun in rewrite-whole-NuttX-with-a-single-click for me ??
> > o_O
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 7:10 PM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We can't have a NuttX-specific AI policy. This polity is something
> > > that must be consistent across all Apache projects. Remember, Apache
> > owns
> > > this code!
> > > > >
> > > > > The are some Apache discussions and fragments of policies that are
> > > worth considering. We should do nothing inconsistent with the final
> > Apache
> > > policies. Whatever Godot uses is irrelevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is what I was able to find in a a single google:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *
> > > > > Some general discussion:
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/l0n4w86v1o5cwkqpqtf2q7lb7zdyrymf
> > > > > *
> > > > > Apache VP of Legal Affairs:
> > >
> > https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/why-generative-ai-guidance-is-essential-to-contributors-of-open-source
> > > > > *
> > > > > ASF Generative Tooling Guidance:
> > > https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't really absorbed all of this. My point is that we must
> > > follow the same rules and principles as the Apache Software Foundation on
> > > this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Greg
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:47 AM
> > > > > To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
> > > > > Subject: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
> > > > >
> > > > > 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/
> > >
> >
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by raiden00pl <ra...@gmail.com>.
Out of curiosity, have people who are against AI in this conversation
actually used AI? From some of the comments, I see they have little
idea what an AI workflow looks like and that AI writes code on its own
without much human intervention or creativity. Vibe coding and creating
high-quality code with AI are two different things.
The only concern I see with AI is the copyright issue. But that's not the
problem
of this project, but a global problem of how copyright is approached in
the AI era. As an anti-copyright advocate, I'm glad that technological
advancement
may finally put an end to this absurdity (infoanarchist here).
czw., 2 lip 2026 o 15:04 Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> Hi Tomek,
>
> "therefore is owned by the AI owner" that is wrong, none AI supplier is
> owner of the result code.
>
> Please read the ASF links that Greg sent, you will find reference to:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
>
> The problem is the opposite: all code generated by AI is "public domain",
> you cannot say it is your copyright and the AI LLM owner cannot say it is
> their copyright.
>
> If you consider that all AI LLM are trained with knowledge created by
> humanity, this decision seems fair.
>
> Everybody using AI is just like the "Monkey" pressing the capture Button.
> Every project receiving that code is the news media publishing the Monkey
> picture.
>
> BR,
>
> Alan
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 5:58 PM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
>
> > I think we had this discussion some time ago.
> >
> > The biggest issue here is copyright claims and licensing of the fully
> > generated code, noted by the FreeBSD project, we need Apache guides
> > here true. But imagine someone pushes Apache 2.0 licensed code that
> > was generated by AI and therefore is owned by the AI owner and cannot
> > be attributed Apache license.
> >
> > We want real passionates behind the code. This is that simple.
> >
> > Below is a reminder of proposition for AGENTS.md and/or Contributing
> > Guide - we may have something like this just as general set of rules
> > that are project specific - just as code formatting right?
> >
> > 1.18. AI and Agents.
> >
> > 1.18.1. We expect authentic engagement in our community. NuttX comes
> > from years of hard work, passion, and personal dedication of
> > individuals from around the world. We welcome and respect people with
> > similar mindset. But we do not tolerate shortcuts and we have clearly
> > defined enemies (see The Inviolable Principles of NuttX).
> >
> > 1.18.2. AI tools may do some of the work parts for you but it will not
> > think for you. Treat them as your helpers but only in tasks which you
> > already have experience so you can understand, verify, and explain the
> > results details to anyone else on your own. We use tools to save our
> > precious time. Without prior experience and perfect understanding the
> > outcome is quite opposite - everyone's time is wasted - and we want to
> > avoid that.
> >
> > 1.18.3. Using AI tools for your internal work like brainstorming,
> > prototyping, finding information and examples, text correction,
> > verification against contributing guidelines and code formatting, is
> > fine, but the final submission shared with the project must be result
> > of your own work and intellect. This effort makes us grow, develop
> > individual skills, and provides experience necessary for top quality
> > results.
> >
> > 1.18.4. Using AI tools to generate a code, git commits, pull requests,
> > or any communication channel messages, even with minor edits to
> > pretend it's your own work, is unacceptable. This contradicts the
> > Apache Software Foundation contribution rules [citation_needed]. This
> > also imposes serious copyright and licensing infringement risks
> > because very often AI generated content is copyrighted by the AI owner
> > even if you created the result. If this is your first or following
> > contribution you will be banned.
> >
> > 1.18.5. We reserve right to ban/block/remove user accounts that are
> > considered malicious/spam/bot/ai activity that break any of the
> > presented rules.
> >
> > 1.18.6. The only exception here is for our own internal and approved
> > testing or automation tools that may, but usually do not, have some
> > sort of reporting autonomy, that we have created ourselves in
> > accordance with presented rules.
> >
> >
> > --
> > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 8:40 PM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmm, we just got a good-bad-example, take a look at:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19249 - this adds new board
> > > rpi-pico-2-w but also breaks other areas boards etc. Matteo closed it
> > > as ai slop right away.
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19250 - then this PR showed up as
> > > fix very quickly after, with less issues, focused on the board added,
> > > and author honestly admitted all code was generated by AI.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thus my response in the PR but also here:
> > >
> > > > @xiaoxiang781216: We need accept the trend: all developers will
> > utilize AI to generate material (code, commit, documentation, pr) sooner
> or
> > later.
> > >
> > > @xiaoxiang781216 I agree with @linguini1 here, and looking at the
> > > mailing list, most of the community - we want to keep NuttX a project
> > > developed by a community of passionates, professionals, and
> > > enthusiasts.
> > >
> > > "all developers will utilize AI to generate material (code, commit,
> > > documentation, pr) sooner or later" - yes we cannot avoid that, but we
> > > do NOT need to "accept the trend", we may just acknowledge the problem
> > > but not become part of the problem :-)
> > >
> > > This is similar to "rewrite everything in Rust" "trend" - we may
> > > acknowledge the problem and still not become part of the problem :-)
> > >
> > > Let people rewrite everything in Rust, but from scratch, away from
> > > here. The same with AI :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree with Matteo that we should avoid AI slop. We had many bad
> > > examples already, costing us time and energy that could go intro
> > > something more constructive. Many Open-Source projects acknowledge
> > > this problem and do not want to be part of the problem. We want "our"
> > > projects to stay "ours" in terms of fun, code, mistakes, learning
> > > curve, experiments, and the overall the community of enthusiasts.
> > >
> > > What is the fun in rewrite-whole-NuttX-with-a-single-click for me ??
> o_O
> > >
> > > --
> > > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 7:10 PM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We can't have a NuttX-specific AI policy. This polity is something
> > that must be consistent across all Apache projects. Remember, Apache
> owns
> > this code!
> > > >
> > > > The are some Apache discussions and fragments of policies that are
> > worth considering. We should do nothing inconsistent with the final
> Apache
> > policies. Whatever Godot uses is irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > This is what I was able to find in a a single google:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > > Some general discussion:
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/l0n4w86v1o5cwkqpqtf2q7lb7zdyrymf
> > > > *
> > > > Apache VP of Legal Affairs:
> >
> https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/why-generative-ai-guidance-is-essential-to-contributors-of-open-source
> > > > *
> > > > ASF Generative Tooling Guidance:
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
> > > >
> > > > I haven't really absorbed all of this. My point is that we must
> > follow the same rules and principles as the Apache Software Foundation on
> > this.
> > > >
> > > > Greg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:47 AM
> > > > To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
> > > > Subject: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
> > > >
> > > > 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/
> >
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by "Alan C. Assis" <ac...@gmail.com>.
Hi Tomek,
"therefore is owned by the AI owner" that is wrong, none AI supplier is
owner of the result code.
Please read the ASF links that Greg sent, you will find reference to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
The problem is the opposite: all code generated by AI is "public domain",
you cannot say it is your copyright and the AI LLM owner cannot say it is
their copyright.
If you consider that all AI LLM are trained with knowledge created by
humanity, this decision seems fair.
Everybody using AI is just like the "Monkey" pressing the capture Button.
Every project receiving that code is the news media publishing the Monkey
picture.
BR,
Alan
On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 5:58 PM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> I think we had this discussion some time ago.
>
> The biggest issue here is copyright claims and licensing of the fully
> generated code, noted by the FreeBSD project, we need Apache guides
> here true. But imagine someone pushes Apache 2.0 licensed code that
> was generated by AI and therefore is owned by the AI owner and cannot
> be attributed Apache license.
>
> We want real passionates behind the code. This is that simple.
>
> Below is a reminder of proposition for AGENTS.md and/or Contributing
> Guide - we may have something like this just as general set of rules
> that are project specific - just as code formatting right?
>
> 1.18. AI and Agents.
>
> 1.18.1. We expect authentic engagement in our community. NuttX comes
> from years of hard work, passion, and personal dedication of
> individuals from around the world. We welcome and respect people with
> similar mindset. But we do not tolerate shortcuts and we have clearly
> defined enemies (see The Inviolable Principles of NuttX).
>
> 1.18.2. AI tools may do some of the work parts for you but it will not
> think for you. Treat them as your helpers but only in tasks which you
> already have experience so you can understand, verify, and explain the
> results details to anyone else on your own. We use tools to save our
> precious time. Without prior experience and perfect understanding the
> outcome is quite opposite - everyone's time is wasted - and we want to
> avoid that.
>
> 1.18.3. Using AI tools for your internal work like brainstorming,
> prototyping, finding information and examples, text correction,
> verification against contributing guidelines and code formatting, is
> fine, but the final submission shared with the project must be result
> of your own work and intellect. This effort makes us grow, develop
> individual skills, and provides experience necessary for top quality
> results.
>
> 1.18.4. Using AI tools to generate a code, git commits, pull requests,
> or any communication channel messages, even with minor edits to
> pretend it's your own work, is unacceptable. This contradicts the
> Apache Software Foundation contribution rules [citation_needed]. This
> also imposes serious copyright and licensing infringement risks
> because very often AI generated content is copyrighted by the AI owner
> even if you created the result. If this is your first or following
> contribution you will be banned.
>
> 1.18.5. We reserve right to ban/block/remove user accounts that are
> considered malicious/spam/bot/ai activity that break any of the
> presented rules.
>
> 1.18.6. The only exception here is for our own internal and approved
> testing or automation tools that may, but usually do not, have some
> sort of reporting autonomy, that we have created ourselves in
> accordance with presented rules.
>
>
> --
> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 8:40 PM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, we just got a good-bad-example, take a look at:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19249 - this adds new board
> > rpi-pico-2-w but also breaks other areas boards etc. Matteo closed it
> > as ai slop right away.
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19250 - then this PR showed up as
> > fix very quickly after, with less issues, focused on the board added,
> > and author honestly admitted all code was generated by AI.
> >
> >
> > Thus my response in the PR but also here:
> >
> > > @xiaoxiang781216: We need accept the trend: all developers will
> utilize AI to generate material (code, commit, documentation, pr) sooner or
> later.
> >
> > @xiaoxiang781216 I agree with @linguini1 here, and looking at the
> > mailing list, most of the community - we want to keep NuttX a project
> > developed by a community of passionates, professionals, and
> > enthusiasts.
> >
> > "all developers will utilize AI to generate material (code, commit,
> > documentation, pr) sooner or later" - yes we cannot avoid that, but we
> > do NOT need to "accept the trend", we may just acknowledge the problem
> > but not become part of the problem :-)
> >
> > This is similar to "rewrite everything in Rust" "trend" - we may
> > acknowledge the problem and still not become part of the problem :-)
> >
> > Let people rewrite everything in Rust, but from scratch, away from
> > here. The same with AI :-)
> >
> >
> > I agree with Matteo that we should avoid AI slop. We had many bad
> > examples already, costing us time and energy that could go intro
> > something more constructive. Many Open-Source projects acknowledge
> > this problem and do not want to be part of the problem. We want "our"
> > projects to stay "ours" in terms of fun, code, mistakes, learning
> > curve, experiments, and the overall the community of enthusiasts.
> >
> > What is the fun in rewrite-whole-NuttX-with-a-single-click for me ?? o_O
> >
> > --
> > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 7:10 PM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > We can't have a NuttX-specific AI policy. This polity is something
> that must be consistent across all Apache projects. Remember, Apache owns
> this code!
> > >
> > > The are some Apache discussions and fragments of policies that are
> worth considering. We should do nothing inconsistent with the final Apache
> policies. Whatever Godot uses is irrelevant.
> > >
> > > This is what I was able to find in a a single google:
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > > Some general discussion:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/l0n4w86v1o5cwkqpqtf2q7lb7zdyrymf
> > > *
> > > Apache VP of Legal Affairs:
> https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/why-generative-ai-guidance-is-essential-to-contributors-of-open-source
> > > *
> > > ASF Generative Tooling Guidance:
> https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
> > >
> > > I haven't really absorbed all of this. My point is that we must
> follow the same rules and principles as the Apache Software Foundation on
> this.
> > >
> > > Greg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:47 AM
> > > To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
> > > Subject: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
> > >
> > > 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/
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info>.
I think we had this discussion some time ago.
The biggest issue here is copyright claims and licensing of the fully
generated code, noted by the FreeBSD project, we need Apache guides
here true. But imagine someone pushes Apache 2.0 licensed code that
was generated by AI and therefore is owned by the AI owner and cannot
be attributed Apache license.
We want real passionates behind the code. This is that simple.
Below is a reminder of proposition for AGENTS.md and/or Contributing
Guide - we may have something like this just as general set of rules
that are project specific - just as code formatting right?
1.18. AI and Agents.
1.18.1. We expect authentic engagement in our community. NuttX comes
from years of hard work, passion, and personal dedication of
individuals from around the world. We welcome and respect people with
similar mindset. But we do not tolerate shortcuts and we have clearly
defined enemies (see The Inviolable Principles of NuttX).
1.18.2. AI tools may do some of the work parts for you but it will not
think for you. Treat them as your helpers but only in tasks which you
already have experience so you can understand, verify, and explain the
results details to anyone else on your own. We use tools to save our
precious time. Without prior experience and perfect understanding the
outcome is quite opposite - everyone's time is wasted - and we want to
avoid that.
1.18.3. Using AI tools for your internal work like brainstorming,
prototyping, finding information and examples, text correction,
verification against contributing guidelines and code formatting, is
fine, but the final submission shared with the project must be result
of your own work and intellect. This effort makes us grow, develop
individual skills, and provides experience necessary for top quality
results.
1.18.4. Using AI tools to generate a code, git commits, pull requests,
or any communication channel messages, even with minor edits to
pretend it's your own work, is unacceptable. This contradicts the
Apache Software Foundation contribution rules [citation_needed]. This
also imposes serious copyright and licensing infringement risks
because very often AI generated content is copyrighted by the AI owner
even if you created the result. If this is your first or following
contribution you will be banned.
1.18.5. We reserve right to ban/block/remove user accounts that are
considered malicious/spam/bot/ai activity that break any of the
presented rules.
1.18.6. The only exception here is for our own internal and approved
testing or automation tools that may, but usually do not, have some
sort of reporting autonomy, that we have created ourselves in
accordance with presented rules.
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 8:40 PM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
>
> Hmm, we just got a good-bad-example, take a look at:
>
> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19249 - this adds new board
> rpi-pico-2-w but also breaks other areas boards etc. Matteo closed it
> as ai slop right away.
>
> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19250 - then this PR showed up as
> fix very quickly after, with less issues, focused on the board added,
> and author honestly admitted all code was generated by AI.
>
>
> Thus my response in the PR but also here:
>
> > @xiaoxiang781216: We need accept the trend: all developers will utilize AI to generate material (code, commit, documentation, pr) sooner or later.
>
> @xiaoxiang781216 I agree with @linguini1 here, and looking at the
> mailing list, most of the community - we want to keep NuttX a project
> developed by a community of passionates, professionals, and
> enthusiasts.
>
> "all developers will utilize AI to generate material (code, commit,
> documentation, pr) sooner or later" - yes we cannot avoid that, but we
> do NOT need to "accept the trend", we may just acknowledge the problem
> but not become part of the problem :-)
>
> This is similar to "rewrite everything in Rust" "trend" - we may
> acknowledge the problem and still not become part of the problem :-)
>
> Let people rewrite everything in Rust, but from scratch, away from
> here. The same with AI :-)
>
>
> I agree with Matteo that we should avoid AI slop. We had many bad
> examples already, costing us time and energy that could go intro
> something more constructive. Many Open-Source projects acknowledge
> this problem and do not want to be part of the problem. We want "our"
> projects to stay "ours" in terms of fun, code, mistakes, learning
> curve, experiments, and the overall the community of enthusiasts.
>
> What is the fun in rewrite-whole-NuttX-with-a-single-click for me ?? o_O
>
> --
> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 7:10 PM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We can't have a NuttX-specific AI policy. This polity is something that must be consistent across all Apache projects. Remember, Apache owns this code!
> >
> > The are some Apache discussions and fragments of policies that are worth considering. We should do nothing inconsistent with the final Apache policies. Whatever Godot uses is irrelevant.
> >
> > This is what I was able to find in a a single google:
> >
> >
> > *
> > Some general discussion: https://lists.apache.org/thread/l0n4w86v1o5cwkqpqtf2q7lb7zdyrymf
> > *
> > Apache VP of Legal Affairs: https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/why-generative-ai-guidance-is-essential-to-contributors-of-open-source
> > *
> > ASF Generative Tooling Guidance: https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
> >
> > I haven't really absorbed all of this. My point is that we must follow the same rules and principles as the Apache Software Foundation on this.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:47 AM
> > To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
> > Subject: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
> >
> > 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/
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info>.
Hmm, we just got a good-bad-example, take a look at:
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19249 - this adds new board
rpi-pico-2-w but also breaks other areas boards etc. Matteo closed it
as ai slop right away.
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19250 - then this PR showed up as
fix very quickly after, with less issues, focused on the board added,
and author honestly admitted all code was generated by AI.
Thus my response in the PR but also here:
> @xiaoxiang781216: We need accept the trend: all developers will utilize AI to generate material (code, commit, documentation, pr) sooner or later.
@xiaoxiang781216 I agree with @linguini1 here, and looking at the
mailing list, most of the community - we want to keep NuttX a project
developed by a community of passionates, professionals, and
enthusiasts.
"all developers will utilize AI to generate material (code, commit,
documentation, pr) sooner or later" - yes we cannot avoid that, but we
do NOT need to "accept the trend", we may just acknowledge the problem
but not become part of the problem :-)
This is similar to "rewrite everything in Rust" "trend" - we may
acknowledge the problem and still not become part of the problem :-)
Let people rewrite everything in Rust, but from scratch, away from
here. The same with AI :-)
I agree with Matteo that we should avoid AI slop. We had many bad
examples already, costing us time and energy that could go intro
something more constructive. Many Open-Source projects acknowledge
this problem and do not want to be part of the problem. We want "our"
projects to stay "ours" in terms of fun, code, mistakes, learning
curve, experiments, and the overall the community of enthusiasts.
What is the fun in rewrite-whole-NuttX-with-a-single-click for me ?? o_O
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 7:10 PM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We can't have a NuttX-specific AI policy. This polity is something that must be consistent across all Apache projects. Remember, Apache owns this code!
>
> The are some Apache discussions and fragments of policies that are worth considering. We should do nothing inconsistent with the final Apache policies. Whatever Godot uses is irrelevant.
>
> This is what I was able to find in a a single google:
>
>
> *
> Some general discussion: https://lists.apache.org/thread/l0n4w86v1o5cwkqpqtf2q7lb7zdyrymf
> *
> Apache VP of Legal Affairs: https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/why-generative-ai-guidance-is-essential-to-contributors-of-open-source
> *
> ASF Generative Tooling Guidance: https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
>
> I haven't really absorbed all of this. My point is that we must follow the same rules and principles as the Apache Software Foundation on this.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:47 AM
> To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
> Subject: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
>
> 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/
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by "Alan C. Assis" <ac...@gmail.com>.
Good point Greg!
So, we need to follow the direction defined by Apache (that although not
conclusive, seems like acceptable to AI with some care)
Even if we cannot decide to go in the opposite direction, we can improve
the current process to make things more clear (for contributors, for users,
for us).
We can include some questions when opening the PR to let contributors tell
us if the contribution was developed with help of AI, which AI tool was
used, etc.
BR,
Alan
On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 4:09 PM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We can't have a NuttX-specific AI policy. This polity is something that
> must be consistent across all Apache projects. Remember, Apache owns this
> code!
>
> The are some Apache discussions and fragments of policies that are worth
> considering. We should do nothing inconsistent with the final Apache
> policies. Whatever Godot uses is irrelevant.
>
> This is what I was able to find in a a single google:
>
>
> *
> Some general discussion:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/l0n4w86v1o5cwkqpqtf2q7lb7zdyrymf
> *
> Apache VP of Legal Affairs:
> https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/why-generative-ai-guidance-is-essential-to-contributors-of-open-source
> *
> ASF Generative Tooling Guidance:
> https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
>
> I haven't really absorbed all of this. My point is that we must follow
> the same rules and principles as the Apache Software Foundation on this.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:47 AM
> To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
> Subject: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
>
> 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/
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>.
We can't have a NuttX-specific AI policy. This polity is something that must be consistent across all Apache projects. Remember, Apache owns this code!
The are some Apache discussions and fragments of policies that are worth considering. We should do nothing inconsistent with the final Apache policies. Whatever Godot uses is irrelevant.
This is what I was able to find in a a single google:
*
Some general discussion: https://lists.apache.org/thread/l0n4w86v1o5cwkqpqtf2q7lb7zdyrymf
*
Apache VP of Legal Affairs: https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/why-generative-ai-guidance-is-essential-to-contributors-of-open-source
*
ASF Generative Tooling Guidance: https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
I haven't really absorbed all of this. My point is that we must follow the same rules and principles as the Apache Software Foundation on this.
Greg
________________________________
From: Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:47 AM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
Subject: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
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/
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>.
Those are good points! I think this is a general AI problem with text; it's
very verbose. In a developer setting, it's nice to only have to read as
little as necessary. Something we'll need to be mindful of in reviews about
docs!
I've seen this mostly in the generated PR descriptions. One big thing is
that AI likes to list the paths of all changed files. No one cares, that's
what the diff is for! The descriptions get really long quickly in these
cases. Hard to do anything about that in review except politely ask that
contributors read their generated output and try to shorten it before
opening.
Best,
Matteo
On Fri, Jul 24, 2026, 8:32 a.m. Javier Alonso <ja...@geotab.com>
wrote:
> 100% with raiden here. It's not only the contributions being valuable
> and adding something that's really useful, but the pain in the ass of
> *way too much documentation*. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% on fully
> documented APIs and modules, and this has been something greatly
> discussed in this forum as NuttX lacks of documentation for a large
> piece of its codebase. But overflooding commits, functions, MRs, and
> discussions with AI-generated text that's way too repetitive, adds
> very little value, and "scares" the maintainers is a very big pain
> point.
>
> IDK if the AI policy already takes this into account, but for me it'd
> be a big requirement for committers to the repo that use AI to keep
> documentation contained, useful, simple, and to only get extensive if
> really necessary.
>
> Javier Alonso (he, him, his)
> Geotab
>
> Team Lead - Embedded Systems | GEUR
>
> Javier Alonso (he, him, his)
> Geotab
>
> Team Lead - Embedded Systems | GEUR
>
>
> Quickly schedule a meeting
>
> Toll-free
>
> Visit
>
> +1 (877) 436-8221
> www.geotab.com
>
> X | Facebook | YouTube | LinkedIn
>
> Celebrating 25 years of innovation and impact
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 2:27 PM raiden00pl <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 <ma...@gmail.com>
> 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 <ac...@gmail.com>
> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> > > 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 <hartman.nathan@gmail.com
> >
> > > > > napisał(a):
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 8:18 AM raiden00pl <raiden00pl@gmail.com
> >
> > > > 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?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Javier Alonso <ja...@geotab.com>.
100% with raiden here. It's not only the contributions being valuable
and adding something that's really useful, but the pain in the ass of
*way too much documentation*. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% on fully
documented APIs and modules, and this has been something greatly
discussed in this forum as NuttX lacks of documentation for a large
piece of its codebase. But overflooding commits, functions, MRs, and
discussions with AI-generated text that's way too repetitive, adds
very little value, and "scares" the maintainers is a very big pain
point.
IDK if the AI policy already takes this into account, but for me it'd
be a big requirement for committers to the repo that use AI to keep
documentation contained, useful, simple, and to only get extensive if
really necessary.
Javier Alonso (he, him, his)
Geotab
Team Lead - Embedded Systems | GEUR
Javier Alonso (he, him, his)
Geotab
Team Lead - Embedded Systems | GEUR
Quickly schedule a meeting
Toll-free
Visit
+1 (877) 436-8221
www.geotab.com
X | Facebook | YouTube | LinkedIn
Celebrating 25 years of innovation and impact
On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 2:27 PM raiden00pl <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <ma...@gmail.com> 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 <ac...@gmail.com> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> > 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 <ha...@gmail.com>
> > > > napisał(a):
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 8:18 AM raiden00pl <ra...@gmail.com>
> > > 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?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by raiden00pl <ra...@gmail.com>.
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 <ma...@gmail.com> 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 <ac...@gmail.com> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> 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 <ha...@gmail.com>
> > > napisał(a):
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 8:18 AM raiden00pl <ra...@gmail.com>
> > 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?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>.
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 <ac...@gmail.com> 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 <ra...@gmail.com> 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 <ha...@gmail.com>
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 8:18 AM raiden00pl <ra...@gmail.com>
> 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?
> > >
> >
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by "Alan C. Assis" <ac...@gmail.com>.
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 <ra...@gmail.com> 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 <ha...@gmail.com>
> napisał(a):
>
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 8:18 AM raiden00pl <ra...@gmail.com> 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?
> >
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by raiden00pl <ra...@gmail.com>.
> 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 <ha...@gmail.com>
napisał(a):
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 8:18 AM raiden00pl <ra...@gmail.com> 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?
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Nathan Hartman <ha...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 8:18 AM raiden00pl <ra...@gmail.com> 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?
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by raiden00pl <ra...@gmail.com>.
Comments about AI hallucinations and its uselessness usually come from
people who haven't even used AI. Of course, they're complete nonsense.
A properly prepared AI environment for embedded can do truly remarkable
things. With NuttX it works great.
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.
> another example from KML
>
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/CAHk-=wi4zC+Ze8e+p3tMv8TtG_80KzsZ1syL9anBtmEh5Z40vg@mail.gmail.com/
I agree 100%. I'm here to make better technology, not to hear about
the moral aspects of AI. Preaching morality in technical projects is
ridiculous, especially since the morality of individuals can be
completely different. The approach to intellectual property itself
completely changes the moral assessment of AI.
czw., 16 lip 2026 o 13:49 Alin.Jerpelea@sony.com <Al...@sony.com>
napisał(a):
> another example from KML
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/CAHk-=wi4zC+Ze8e+p3tMv8TtG_80KzsZ1syL9anBtmEh5Z40vg@mail.gmail.com/
> ________________________________
> Från: Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com>
> Skickat: den 16 juli 2026 13:42
> Till: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
> Ämne: Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
>
> +1 for Xiang vision! We need more reviewers to let us spot some bad
> quality code. Forbidden AI will not prevent someone from pretending to be
> the author of a code, it is better to announce he/she is using AI because
> we will raise the analysis
>
>
> +1 for Xiang vision!
>
> We need more reviewers to let us spot some bad quality code.
>
> Forbidden AI will not prevent someone from pretending to be the author of a
> code, it is better to announce he/she is using AI because we will raise the
> analysis criteria even more to spot bad code.
>
> BR,
>
> Alan
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 6:58 AM Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 <se...@lorquet.fr>
> > 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 <
> > sebastien@lorquet.fr>
> > > > 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 <ma...@gmail.com>
> > > >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://godotengine.org/article/contribution-policy-2026/__;!!O7_YSHcmd9jp3hj_4dEAcyQ!02jsPjknUtWeBJdjvI62MjKmO-drUNfgF7jOwiGM3NVnDqOjRRew6ZqFTdluuEjqmApBP4Klg500vqjq$
> > > >>>>
> > >
> >
>
>
Sv: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by "Alin.Jerpelea@sony.com" <Al...@sony.com>.
another example from KML
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/CAHk-=wi4zC+Ze8e+p3tMv8TtG_80KzsZ1syL9anBtmEh5Z40vg@mail.gmail.com/
________________________________
Från: Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com>
Skickat: den 16 juli 2026 13:42
Till: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
Ämne: Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
+1 for Xiang vision! We need more reviewers to let us spot some bad quality code. Forbidden AI will not prevent someone from pretending to be the author of a code, it is better to announce he/she is using AI because we will raise the analysis
+1 for Xiang vision!
We need more reviewers to let us spot some bad quality code.
Forbidden AI will not prevent someone from pretending to be the author of a
code, it is better to announce he/she is using AI because we will raise the
analysis criteria even more to spot bad code.
BR,
Alan
On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 6:58 AM Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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 <se...@lorquet.fr>
> 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 <
> sebastien@lorquet.fr>
> > > 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 <ma...@gmail.com>
> > >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://godotengine.org/article/contribution-policy-2026/__;!!O7_YSHcmd9jp3hj_4dEAcyQ!02jsPjknUtWeBJdjvI62MjKmO-drUNfgF7jOwiGM3NVnDqOjRRew6ZqFTdluuEjqmApBP4Klg500vqjq$
> > >>>>
> >
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by "Alan C. Assis" <ac...@gmail.com>.
+1 for Xiang vision!
We need more reviewers to let us spot some bad quality code.
Forbidden AI will not prevent someone from pretending to be the author of a
code, it is better to announce he/she is using AI because we will raise the
analysis criteria even more to spot bad code.
BR,
Alan
On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 6:58 AM Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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 <se...@lorquet.fr>
> 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 <
> sebastien@lorquet.fr>
> > > 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 <ma...@gmail.com>
> > >> 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/
> > >>>>
> >
>
Sv: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by "Alin.Jerpelea@sony.com" <Al...@sony.com>.
+1 for Xiang Xiao's view
Best regards
Alin J
________________________________
Från: Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com>
Skickat: den 16 juli 2026 11:58
Till: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
Ämne: 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
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 <se...@lorquet.fr>
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 <se...@lorquet.fr>
> > 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 <ma...@gmail.com>
> >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://godotengine.org/article/contribution-policy-2026/__;!!O7_YSHcmd9jp3hj_4dEAcyQ!zjf8SUoYPVoZVq49pigkJSO7sAp5-3YeCW-k5p4W0Ws-N74iunCJRrLUlpaZkg30aGfGi7NqUV5j9Q_6-sGDIbOQr0Q$
> >>>>
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>.
Yes, very good. Let's judge the end result, not the tools used to produce the result.
________________________________
From: Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2026 2:58 AM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
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 <se...@lorquet.fr>
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 <se...@lorquet.fr>
> > 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 <ma...@gmail.com>
> >> 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/
> >>>>
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com>.
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 <se...@lorquet.fr>
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 <se...@lorquet.fr>
> > 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 <ma...@gmail.com>
> >> 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/
> >>>>
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Sebastien Lorquet <se...@lorquet.fr>.
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 <se...@lorquet.fr>
> 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 <ma...@gmail.com>
>> 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/
>>>>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by kr...@kerogit.eu.
On 2026-07-15 21:27, Alan C. Assis wrote:
> 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).
This is not universally true. If your job involves doing a lot of math
and you choose to not use a calculator, it may be your decision... until
it becomes apparent that other people, who do use the calculator, are
way faster and way reliable than you. At that point, you are likely to
lose that job.
And that is correct. Since humanity developed a tool that makes some
task trivial and reliable, humans are supposed to move on, leave that
task to the tool and do things that the tool is not able to do.
This AI debate is the same as with every new technology. For example, no
one here is arguing that we should not use computers because of
[reasons]. We are used to computers just being here and doing a lot of
stuff we would not consider worth doing ourselves. Sum of 10000 numbers
manually? Why?? Thanks but no thanks.
And yet, just a few decades back people were quite strongly opposed to
computers. My grandma was against them because they are taking jobs away
from people. She was right of course - but the same thing can be said
about agriculture machinery and yet no one yearns for the back old days
when 90% of Earth population worked the fields from dawn to dusk.
Agricultural machinery stayed, industrial machinery stayed, calculators
are still present, so are computers... AI is here to stay as well. Yes,
there are a lot of moral problems with it. Everyone who wants to train a
model considers all contents on the internet free for grabs, regardless
of costs incurred on the content provider. Current AI industry is a big
economical bubble and when it bursts, it will be felt far and wide. To
feed the bubble, AI companies are trying to build more and more quickly,
with no regards to how it affects people who have to live near the new
datacenters. Government corruption runs rampant with regards to all
that.
... and none of this matters. In the end, the sole deciding factor will
be that AI is a very useful tool for a lot of jobs. And motivation to
use it will simply be too high to be ignored - so people will simply
ignore the morals instead. That is our nature and AI is here to stay. If
an individual or a group chooses to ignore the tool, they are going to
set themselves back immensely and will be eventually pushed away by the
competition (that is - everyone else.)
As for NuttX - anyone is of course free to not use any tool when making
a contribution. But trying to put a ban on using AI is - if enforced -
going to kill the project outright. Try to imagine that you read NuttX
contribution rules for the first time and one of the rules is: "You are
not permitted to use any text editor/IDE when creating your
contribution". Your reaction to such a rule now is how a newcomer will
feel about "AI ban" rule in few years.
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by "Alan C. Assis" <ac...@gmail.com>.
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 <se...@lorquet.fr>
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 <ma...@gmail.com>
> 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/
> >>
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Michał Łyszczek <mi...@bofc.pl>.
On 2026-07-16 10:03:26, Sebastien Lorquet wrote:
> On 7/15/26 20:09, Mark Stevens via dev wrote:
> > It does not matter whether you like AI or not, it is here to stay, plain and simple
> You want to play like this? So here it goes: it's here to stay until you
> and/or your company can afford it.
And looking at numbers... It seems it won't be too long before open source
goes back to 100% ai-less coding ;)
Refactor that stm32 arch asap I say :p
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Sebastien Lorquet <se...@lorquet.fr>.
On 7/15/26 20:09, Mark Stevens via dev wrote:
> It does not matter whether you like AI or not, it is here to stay, plain and simple
Oh come on.
You want to play like this? So here it goes: it's here to stay until you
and/or your company can afford it.
Sebastien
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Mark Stevens via dev <de...@nuttx.apache.org>.
> 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 <lw...@gmail.com> 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 <ac...@gmail.com> 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 <dev@nuttx.apache.org
>>>
>> 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 <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Lwazi,
>>>>
>>>> Here is the earlier thread from another discussion about an AI policy:
>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@nuttx.apache.org/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 <
>> sebastien@lorquet.fr>
>>>> 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 <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>>> 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/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Lwazi Dube <lw...@gmail.com>.
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 <ac...@gmail.com> 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 <dev@nuttx.apache.org
> >
> 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 <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Lwazi,
> > >
> > > Here is the earlier thread from another discussion about an AI policy:
> > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@nuttx.apache.org/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 <
> sebastien@lorquet.fr>
> > > 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 <ma...@gmail.com>
> > >> 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/
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by "Alan C. Assis" <ac...@gmail.com>.
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 <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
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 <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Lwazi,
> >
> > Here is the earlier thread from another discussion about an AI policy:
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@nuttx.apache.org/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 <se...@lorquet.fr>
> > 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 <ma...@gmail.com>
> >> 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/
> >>>>
> >>
>
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Mark Stevens via dev <de...@nuttx.apache.org>.
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 <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Lwazi,
>
> Here is the earlier thread from another discussion about an AI policy:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@nuttx.apache.org/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 <se...@lorquet.fr>
> 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 <ma...@gmail.com>
>> 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/
>>>>
>>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Matteo Golin <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hello Lwazi,
Here is the earlier thread from another discussion about an AI policy:
https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@nuttx.apache.org/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 <se...@lorquet.fr>
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 <ma...@gmail.com>
> 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/
> >>
>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Sebastien Lorquet <se...@lorquet.fr>.
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 <ma...@gmail.com> 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/
>>
Re: [COMMENT] Adopt the Godot AI policy
Posted by Lwazi Dube <lw...@gmail.com>.
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 <ma...@gmail.com> 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/
>