[imadr]

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?

[plqbfbv]

> 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.

[fruitworks]

compared to what other projects?

[plqbfbv]

Mine was more a generic argument against the "ban all AI" stance that I've recently seen pop up more often.

At the moment, there isn't another project (that I know of) like PostmarketOS filling the same niche. If a new project were to appear, and were using LLMs, it'd likely progress faster.

Regardless, I've had success with LLMs and while I understand the maintainers' concern, if used properly they're a powerful tool to quickly iterate on huge amounts of information. They could be used to automate reviews of the spam of low-quality PRs, for instance (if they were to materialize).

But having read their policy page, their stance is more on ethical grounds, not moral: https://docs.postmarketos.org/policies-and-processes/develop... . So while I still stand by my argument in the general case, here it's not applicable, and while I see their ethical concerns, one project boycotting a tool doesn't really fix the systemic issues they mention.

[fruitworks]

I'm not sure it would progress faster for this project

[hu3]

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.

[raincole]

The stance is not to 'prevent AI-assisted code to reach their codebase.' It's not like AI-assisted code is literally poisonous and their codebase dies if touched.

The stance is to deter random vibe-coders trying to resume-max by submitting PRs to known open source projects. There are so many of them rn. Hopefully by making it clear (some of) them will realize doing that is just wasting their tokens.

[hu3]

I understand there's an avalanche of vibe slop PRs.

But to be clear their AI instance is as clear-cut as can be. Their instance IS INDEED to "prevent AI-assisted code to reach their codebase".

> The following is not allowed in postmarketOS:

> Submitting contributions fully or in part created by generative AI tools to postmarketOS.

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