Lutris maintainer use AI generated code for some time now. The maintainer also removed the co-authorship of Claude, so no one knows which code was generated by AI.

Anyway, I was suspecting that this “issue” might come up so I’ve removed the Claude co-authorship from the commits a few days ago. So good luck figuring out what’s generated and what is not.

sauce 1

sauce 2

  • mrmaplebar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    23 days ago

    There are massive issues with AI tech, but those are caused by our current capitalist culture, not the tools themselves. In many ways, it couldn’t have been implemented in a worse way but it was AI that bought all the RAM, it was OpenAI. It was not AI that stole copyrighted content, it was Facebook. It wasn’t AI that laid off thousands of employees, it’s deluded executives who don’t understand that this tool is an augmentation, not a replacement for humans.

    I’m not a big fan of having to pay a monthly sub to Anthropic, I don’t like depending on cloud services. But a few months ago (and I was pretty much at my lowest back then, barely able to do anything), I realized that this stuff was starting to do a competent job and was very valuable. And at least I’m not paying Google, Facebook, OpenAI or some company that cooperates with the US army.

    He might have had a leg to stand on here if this was an AI that he had trained himself on ethically-sourced data, but personally I don’t want to be lectured by anyone about “our current capitalist culture” who is intentionally playing right into it by financially supporting the companies at the center of the AI bubble. The very corporations that are known to have scraped countless terabytes of unlicensed data for their own for-profit exploitation, by the way.

    If you discard your self-proclaimed values the second that it becomes convenient or “valuable”, you never had any values to begin with.

    Practice what you preach, or don’t preach at all.

    • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 days ago

      You can run your own ai models locally. Even if they were trained by the evil corporations. Do you also feel the same way about artists who pirated photoshop? Does that devalue their work?

      • mrmaplebar@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        23 days ago

        If this is the best argument the pro-AI crowd has left at this point then you’ve lost all ability to reason…

        Pirating Photoshop is, at worst, taking advantage of Adobe, a multi-billion dollar corporation. They are still very profitable and their employees still got paid to do the work. We can debate the ethics of software piracy all day, and I would argue you’re better off investing your mental energy in FOSS, but in the end I think the social impact of people pirating Photoshop is quite small.

        Compare this to generative AI which is built on the unprecedented exploitation of all human arts, culture and intellectual labor without any form of consent or compensation. All for the benefit of the richest tech oligarchs who are more than happy to sell you a subscription to a product that they stole from the creative class.

        Who is benefitting the most from the AI bubble, the starving artist or the wealthy investor? The thoughtful engineer or the slop slinger? The workers or the suits?

        No matter what way you slice it, you’re not “sticking it to the man”, you are the man. He shouldn’t embarrass himself by blaming “capitalism” when he has shown that he is just as willing to exploit other people’s labor as the next guy–hes just stupid enough to do it for pennies to the AI billionaires dollar.

        • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          23 days ago

          My point was it AI is a tool. You can either use it or you dont. You speak of it being ‘expliotive’ but the world would be much better if copyright didnt exist and intellectual material was simply made available to everyone.

  • missingno@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    23 days ago

    If you truly believe AI is so great, own it. Trying to hide it is not a good look. It shows that they know it’s something to be ashamed of.

  • entwine@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    23 days ago

    Well, guess I’m uninstalling Lutris now. I’ll have to manage my library the old fashioned way until a slop-free alternative comes along.

  • ulterno@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    23 days ago

    welp, another project off my list.
    It was handy as in it enabled me to not require opening EGS, but I haven’t been using EGS lately anyway.
    It’s easier to just stop using it rather than have to write a Firejail profile for it.

  • ikt@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    23 days ago

    this is some real 2022 style complaint

    most developers are using ai in 2026 in some way, it’s simply too good

    • magnetosphere@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 days ago

      Are developers really using AI because it’s “too good”, or is it because management has made the use of AI mandatory?

    • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 days ago

      People malding but its the truth.

      You are living under a rock if you think any major software now doesnt have AI written pieces to it in some manner.

      Its so common now its a waste of time to label it, you should just assume AI was involved at this point.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 days ago

    > entire product loudly denigrated because of new tool used

    Yeah can’t imagine why they’d remove the ‘come have an argument at me’ label.

    I want the bubble to burst so this moral panic will end. Programs can code, now. That’s not going away. Make your peace. We can either leverage this new ability to describe code into existence, and improve all the ways where it demonstrably works okay - or we can pretend that wasn’t the goal of compilers and high-level languages the whole time.

    Oh but this new thing is different; yeah it’s always different, that’s what new means. Neural networks sounded great for decades but had a hard time existing. We finally accepted the bitter lesson that power scales better than cleverness - and hey presto, ‘what’s the next symbol?’ is as smart as a junior developer.

    If you think these fumbling efforts are the best this tool will ever be, we can still extract useful work from it. It’s already a punchline in videos that build some crazy thing the hard way, then have an LLM effortlessly switch languages for speed. Or fight integration hell on their behalf. We’re not doing anyone favors by pretending the problem is the tech. Or by harassing people who work for free on things you like.

    • Crackhappy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 days ago

      Here’s the thing. The more you use AI to generate your code, the less likely you are to fully review all of it, understand what it’s doing and be able to fix it when bugs or exploits appear, or even know that they exist. So sure, it might work for now but what about in a couple of years of vibe coding it?

      • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 days ago

        Isnt that just an issue of code reviewing? If your accepting subpar code from AI… you’re probably accepting subpar code from humans…