Feels pretty Luddite to me.

I remember when people were crying about how much power a google search uses. This is the same thing all over again and it is as pointless now as it was back then.

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/08/google-says-it-dropped-th...

> Google says it dropped the energy cost of AI queries by 33x in one year. The company claims that a text query now burns the equivalent of 9 seconds of TV.

▲

kruffalon 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The audacity to call an organisation that works on making mobile phones and other small PCs work with free software Luddite is impressive.

That's like calling a person going for seconds a conservative (in the USA political sense).

▲

bitwize an hour ago | parent [-]

What do you call a person or organization who refuses to use the best tools available to do the job?

	▲	fruitworks 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think you understand what the job entails, if you think these are the best tools

▲

idiotsecant 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, it's entirely justified when quality of code matters. They don't want a thousand gallons of unreviewable slop. They want a reasonable amount of code that can be sensibility reviewed.

▲

fartfeatures 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

mftrhu 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

> 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.

Why would declining sales of new smartphones have anything to do with PostMarketOS, which only supports phones more than half a decade old?

▲

zozbot234 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

pmOS does support recent phones, provided that they can be bootloader-unlocked - and that's only a few brands these days.

	▲	mftrhu 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Right now, their wiki page on device support [0] lists zero actual devices as "fully supported": > These are the most supported devices, maintained by at least 2 people and have the functions you expect from the device running its normal OS, such as calling on a phone, working audio, and a functional UI. > Besides QEMU devices, this is currently empty. The ports we had here earlier weren't as reliable as we would have liked. We plan to add new devices here with a higher standard. The most recent smartphone in the Community section of that page is the Fairphone 4, released half a decade ago, in 2021. Pixel devices can trivially be bootloader unlocked, but that doesn't make the work that goes into supporting them much easier: the latest device in Testing is the 6a/6 Pro, from 2022, and its device page lists all the features but the most basic (touchscreen, flash, internal storage) as "Untested". [0] https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices

▲

UqWBcuFx6NV4r 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.