663
Lutris maintainer: "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." (github.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/linux_gaming@lemmy.world
256 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Continued discussion: https://github.com/lutris/lutris/discussions/6530

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I had a donation to Lutris, and was already skeptical of the dev's ability to maintain their huge (and very buggy) python/gtk3 codebase. Now I know that giving money to the dev would likely makes things bigger and buggier. This is useful information, and it's better to talk about it somewhere where the dev will respond and relatively few bystanders will hear the discussion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    I'm not saying you shouldn't ever raise this sort of thing as an issue (in general I think issues should only be for bugs, but the annoying reality is there's rarely a better place for discussions that get visibility), I'm saying the specific content of the message is the problem. There are ways to critique the usage of AI and discuss alternatives that wouldn't be an issue.

    For example,

    I see a lot of AI code is used in this repository. AI code is bad because (reasons the user believes it is bad here). Could you please share why/what AI is being used for specifically so we can try to remove the necessity?

    AsideI'm not saying AI code isn't bad, I'm just saying different people think it's bad for different reasons. The specific problem the reporter has with AI code may warrant a specific response.

    Perhaps more maintainers are needed, maybe someone more familiar with third party libs being used could mentor, etc. From there it really depends on what the response from the maintainer is.

    What's not helpful and never going to get anyone to change their opinion is just saying things like "when will @mention see the error of their ways". As humans we respond to this by digging our heels in, which as seen in the issue the maintainer did by becoming less transparent about where AI is and is not used. Had the reporter taken a more diplomatic approach they would have been more likely to get the changes they wanted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    It's also such self entitlement, they were being open about it before but had to deal with childish people like this throwing a tantrum.

    If its such an issue then thank them for being honest, don't use it and move on, no ones entitled to free software though some act like it.

    Not all llm use in code gen is bad, as long as its properly reviewed and disclosed. That's not the same as vibe coding and having no idea about the output.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Yeah, that's sort of my gripe with it. If you genuinely believe all AI code is bad (which is fine, not saying that's a "wrong" opinion) maybe try to help the volunteers instead of just insulting them on an issue tracker.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent