There are ways to achieve that without a blanket ban, if you read their AI policy it seems more "ethically" motivated. They certainly address this first, with many more words and 7 references.

They do go on to address code quality but it is more of an after thought with 0 references, less words and appears lower down the page.

The timing is also suspicious, shortly after publication of this report: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/smartphone-ma... which forecasts declining smartphone sales meaning less devices for this OS to run on.

Please tell me more about how you used GPT-3 a few years ago and haven’t stopped blabbing about how bad it is ever since.

If you’re unable to look at a PR for a few minutes and glean that it’s not worth looking at, then that’s entirely a skill issue on your part. Don’t blame everyone else for what’s very clearly your own shortcoming.

If you’re finding a PR to be unreviewable, then reject it because it’s unreviewable, not by backwards-engineering some BS rule which results in you trying to control how people write their code.

I am completely confident that I could put together some LLM-assisted code that you could t distinguish from something else hand-written, with still enough LLM assistance to have been meaningfully beneficial.

There are many valid critiques of LLMs, but the whole “it’s banned because of code quality” approach is BS. This decision was clearly one rooted in the silly AI culture war.

This is all completely ignoring that the rule is completely unenforceable to begin with. It’s like the chuds on twitter talking about how they can “always tell” that someone is trans. It’s logically flawed.

Sure, AI has developed quickly, but let's see it take on a real engineering challenge, rather than regurgitating boilerplate code.

Writing device drivers from incomplete specs is much harder than "writing a whole application" where the specs are clearly defined and there's a lot more example code to reference. If you believe in AI so much, and believe that it's unreasonable for postmarketOS to not want to use it, put it to the test, prove the doubters wrong, what have you got to lose?

You can’t and that’s why the whole thing is dumb.

Why not just have rules against….bad code?

I can tell the difference between good code and bad LLM-generated code, and I’m no AI fanboy that’s neck deep in the scene. I am a normal software developer.

Some people are just grumpy about change, in which case I’d say that they chose the single worst industry to be in.

The project is simply saying what they want. If you choose to ignore that for some weird reason congratulations for being a jerk, I guess.

If it's crap then it's ai. If it's okay, then we pretend that is just sophisticated auto complete.

Do you bring home 2x-5x more money every month then? Does your company make 2x 5x more profits?

The vibecoder paradox, everyone is 10x as productive, no one can show even a 1.2x increase in anything (besides bot generated comments, traffick and other background noise)

And as we all know, more lines of code always produces better results. That's why we call it "technical wealth".

Is the software you're working on useful? Care to share the link so we can take a look?

So do you review all that code as well?

Could AI write a highly specific camera driver or GPU driver, without any documentation at all?

Yes and? Let's suppose your statement is 100% true, I genuinely don't see the point of these kinds of comments.

Why every time some person/group of people enact an anti-LLM policy in their project, other people feel the personal need to stress how useful LLMs are and how that project is bound to fail if they don't use it?

Postmarketos clearly exists and works, EVEN if LLMs were absolutely perfect for speeding up development ten folds, is there any absolute moral necessity to use them?

Also isn't this just moving the goalpost that LLM fanatics love to point out?

The main reason open source projects exist at all is because of people who started them with quite often fringe ideological leanings. Just look at the GNU project.

> It's fine for a project to have moral/ideological leanings

As long as they align with the correct (i.e. yours) values, of course. When they adopt the wrong values, it's not fine.

Absolutely.

But at the same time I cannot imagine reverting to code with no help of LLMs. Asking stackoverflow and waiting for hours to get my question closed down instead of asking LLM? No way.

Exactly, you can use it for some tasks. But why "explicitly forbid generative AI".

If you use AI to make repetitive tasks less repetitive, and clean up any LLM-ness afterwards, would they notice or care?

I find blanket bans inhibitive, and reeks of fear of change, rather than a real substantive stance.

Same.

Having an LLM helps, especially when you're facing a new subsystem you're not familiar with, and trying to understand how things are done there. They still can't do the heavy duty driver work by themselves - but are good enough for basic guidance and boilerplate.