New policy targets low-quality AI-generated code while still allowing AI as a learning tool.

ItsFOSS's platform is a central hub for Linux enthusiasts and open-source advocates, offering insights into Linux distributions, software applications, and Linux-related news. Through articles, tutorials, and reviews, ItsFOSS offers insights into using Linux as a desktop operating system, developing open-source software, and contributing to the Linux community. Readers can learn about Linux tips and tricks, open-source alternatives to proprietary software, and the latest developments in the Linux ecosystem.

It's Foss

GNOME has updated its extension review guidelines to reject AI-generated code submissions. The policy targets low-quality extensions with unnecessary code patterns like excessive try-catch blocks, inconsistent styling, and imaginary API usage. Reviewers were spending over 6 hours daily reviewing 15,000+ lines of code, much of it AI-generated slop. Using AI as a learning tool or for code completions remains allowed; the ban specifically targets developers who generate entire extensions without understanding the code.

No AI Slops! GNOME Now Forbids Vibe Coded Extensions

Good. Should be the default for serious repos

Now that’s what I’m talking about! Next up linux. Like seriously, I use arch… btw, and I don’t want my arch setup to crash because some random retard vibe coder(no offense) thought it would be a good idea to touch a codebase he has zero idea about what it does!

I agree but this comment in the article got me “Many new developers are increasingly relying on AI-powered tools to learn, and a blanket ban wouldn’t really be constructive, if you ask me.”.
IMO, There is a difference between learning and just vibe coding to get street creds. If you vibe code and then go back through manually to optimize and get rid of the slop, then that is learning and worthy of being submitted.

This highlights a real challenge in software development: automation is useful, but blindly generating entire projects without understanding leads to poor-quality code and wasted review effort. Balancing AI assistance with developer comprehension is key.

Wait…they want stability but are blocking anything that catches errors? That seems counter-intuitive.