[ACCount37]

Weird stance to take.

I can understand "untested AI-genned code is bad, and thus anything that reeks of AI is going to be scrutinized" - especially given that PostmarketOS deals a lot with kernel drivers for hardware. Notoriously low error margins. But they just had to go out of their way and make it ideological rather than pragmatic.

[jonathrg]

It's fine for a project to have moral/ideological leanings, it's only weird if you insist that project teams should be entirely amoral.

[trollbridge]

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.

[Joker_vD]

> 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.

[yehoshuapw]

as a kernel developer, I use LLMs for some tasks, but can say it is not there yet to write real kernel space code

[egorfine]

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.

[crimsonnoodle58]

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.

[ACCount37]

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.

[xantronix]

The licensure of the code generated by LLMs is not a settled matter in all jurisdictions; this is a very valid pragmatic concern they address.