Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI

postmarketos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 116 posts

Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI

#51

Post by coldpie »

crimsonnoodle58 wrote: post #22
jonathrg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Thanks for the clarification. Not that I agree with their stance (the exact same could have been said at the start of the industrial revolution) but I respect it nonetheless.

> the exact same could have been said at the start of the industrial revolution

The pollution caused by said revolution is currently putting humanity at a serious risk of world war and maybe even extinction so... maybe they had a point? I'm not taking a strong stance either way here, but worth thinking about the downsides from the industrial revolution, too.

Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI

#52

Post by ZenoArrow »

baq wrote: post #45

> bans use of generative AI that ship has sailed with codex 5.3 in 90% SWE jobs, unfortunately. I expect the next 9% won't survive the following 12 months and the last 1% is done within 5 years. it isn't even about principles - projects not using gen AI will become basically irrelevant, the pace of gen AI allowed competitors will be too great.

Alright, let's see Codex 5.3 create a competitor to postmarketOS (without just copying the homework of other devs). If you believe in the technology so much, put it to the test, see what it can really do.

Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI

#53

Post by idiotsecant »

egorfine wrote: post #48
kunai wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, autocomplete done by deterministic algorithms in IDEs are okay but autocomplete done by LLM algorithms - no, that's banned? Ok, surely everybody agrees with that, it's policy after all. Because autocomplete still requires heavy user input and a SWE at the top of the decision making tree. You could argue that using Claude or Codex enables you to do the same thing, but there's no guarantee someone isn't vibecodin…

Fully agree with you on all points. But again: how do we distinguish between manual code input and sophisticated autocomplete?

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.

Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI

#54

Post by aboardRat4 »

egorfine wrote: post #48
kunai wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, autocomplete done by deterministic algorithms in IDEs are okay but autocomplete done by LLM algorithms - no, that's banned? Ok, surely everybody agrees with that, it's policy after all. Because autocomplete still requires heavy user input and a SWE at the top of the decision making tree. You could argue that using Claude or Codex enables you to do the same thing, but there's no guarantee someone isn't vibecodin…

Fully agree with you on all points. But again: how do we distinguish between manual code input and sophisticated autocomplete?

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

Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI

#55

Post by egorfine »

aboardRat4 wrote: post #54
egorfine wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fully agree with you on all points. But again: how do we distinguish between manual code input and sophisticated autocomplete?

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

It's pretty much obvious but the policy specifically argues against it and stands on moral grounds.

Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI

#56

Post by surajrmal »

baq wrote: post #45

> bans use of generative AI that ship has sailed with codex 5.3 in 90% SWE jobs, unfortunately. I expect the next 9% won't survive the following 12 months and the last 1% is done within 5 years. it isn't even about principles - projects not using gen AI will become basically irrelevant, the pace of gen AI allowed competitors will be too great.

This stat is grossly inflated. I don't disagree with the general point but adoption isn't that high yet and certainly not for codex specifically.

Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI

#57

Post by egorfine »

idiotsecant wrote: post #53
egorfine wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fully agree with you on all points. But again: how do we distinguish between manual code input and sophisticated autocomplete?

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.

Can you confirm that continuing to use autocomplete in a code base against the policy of the project does make the person a jerk?

Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI

#58

Post by dist-epoch »

baq wrote: post #45

> bans use of generative AI that ship has sailed with codex 5.3 in 90% SWE jobs, unfortunately. I expect the next 9% won't survive the following 12 months and the last 1% is done within 5 years. it isn't even about principles - projects not using gen AI will become basically irrelevant, the pace of gen AI allowed competitors will be too great.

sure, but how do you make irrelevant something which is already irrelevant (PostmarketOS)?

Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI

#59

Post by fartfeatures »

idiotsecant wrote: post #50
fartfeatures wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI

#60

Post by UqWBcuFx6NV4r »

idiotsecant wrote: post #50
fartfeatures wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN