2x productivity will never result in 2x profit unless you somehow monopolize the productivity gain. Better tools can even result in negative profit gains. It's pretty much econ 101.

[flagged]

I use other models to do the code review.

[flagged]

> 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?

There's no moral necessity, but if you want to survive as a project moving forward, you'll have less and less velocity compared to projects using LLMs, so you'll eventually shrink and die as a project, because less people will contribute to a project that gets less features and bug fixes.

I don't understand why these projects have such a strong "moral" stance of "no AI ever", and instead they don't deploy LLMs to automatically review PRs based on their own guidelines, so that if the contribution is valuable, it gets through no matter if it was written by an LLM or not.

I'm pointing out that their expectation of AI-free OS is pointless.

Because AI-assisted code is most probably already present in devices they use.

And I dare say that even for PostmarktOS:

1) There's no way they can prevent AI-assisted code to reach their codebase.

2) They will most probably change this policy in the future lest other forks/projects outpace them in terms of utility and they get reduced to a carriage in a car world.

Probably not and why would it need such constraint?

Not even humans can do that. Documentation needs to at least be reverse-engineered and understood before implementation.

I'm sure it could generate a decent device tree

Can you?

It’s nowhere near 2003 anymore, and whether you or I like it or not there is a far greater visitation in ideology than there used to be. Your point is basically irrelevant.

And fringe economical leanings, too. Just look at the GNU project: the firmware in printers is still of subpar quality, and GNU didn't really help to change that... and why on Earth would it, anyway?

There's still a line between values I disagree with and values that directly attack me as a person. The former is how many of us feel about some of our dependencies and most proprietary software we use, so it's clearly fine to some degree.

But it is fine. If I disagree with a project's values I'm not going to contribute to it, and they wouldn't want me there either.

> But at the same time I cannot imagine reverting to code with no help of LLMs.

And doesn't that bother you a little?

If you listen to podcasts, check out this podcast episode: https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/cautionary-tales/flying-too-...

It is about Air France 447, but also draws parallels to AI and self-driving cars

> and clean up any LLM-ness afterwards

That never happens. It's actually easier to write the code from scratch and avoid LLMness altogether.

They explain why in their AI policy. It's an ethical stance. Of course they wouldn't notice if there aren't clear signs of LLM-ness, but that's not the main reason why they forbid it.

https://docs.postmarketos.org/policies-and-processes/develop...

> But why "explicitly forbid generative AI".

The AI policy linked from the OP explains why. It's half not wanting to deal with slop, and half ethical concerns which still apply when it's used judiciously.

My reading of their AI statement says your kernel contributions are no longer welcome in PostmarketOS, and also, since you're encouraging others in their space to use such tools, you're in violation of their code of conduct.

This applies to the person you're replying to too.

I think their policy is poorly thought out, and that little good will come of it. At best, it'll cause drama in the project, and discourage useful contributions. It's a shame, since we desperately need an alternative to the phone duopoly.

Guidance and boilerplate... in other words, documentation.