There's a bit of drama going on with the popular game manager Lutris right now, with users pointing out the developer using AI generated code via Claude.
Fair. But keep in mind if you ever use auto translate, Netflix recommendations, Google search (or ddg), Windows, Mac, android. iPhone. Any service hosted on AWS (like 70% of all sites) you’re indirectly using ai.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m with out. But it’s unavoidable.
I see it as one if those “no ethical consumption under capitalism” kinda things. You can’t avoid it because the people that control the thing are adding shit to the recipe.
This is a project released for free by volunteers we’re talking about, not a commercial service pushing hostile crap on users.
I think the dev in question is shitty for treating Lutris as their own fiefdom, but the mob are looking a gift horse in the mouth by attacking volunteers when they’re not willing to step up and contribute non-AI code themselves.
“Looking a gift horse in the mouth” means that you’ve received a gift of some kind, but you’re giving it too much scrutiny. It kind of shows the giver of the gift that you’re not really appreciative of it - sometimes it’s better to smile and nod and thank them for the gift, and scrutinize it later.
I guess what you mean is that Lutris is the gift, but my first reading was that the opportunity to chastise a developer for using AI was the gift.
Why are you making up quotes I didn’t say and don’t reflect my opinion in the slightest?
From the outside, it sure looks like you’re trying to flame and stir drama to address your own emotional state, rather than make any sort of coherent argument to persuade people to your line of thinking.
Are these people even paying a single penny to the developer or are they just acting entitled?
Have they contributed at all to the project? Its foss, maybe they dhould open up their own PRs and fix it if they care so much.
Theyre welcome to fork it anytime they want and just not merge in any AI commits, if they can spot them, right?
But I bet you no one will actually do this, people will mald and act entitled and stamp their feet… and then keep using it anyways and never pay a cent to the dev.
The dev “owes us” as people to not be a shitty person, or at the very least, we should expect them not to be one. It absolutely is a slap in the face to people who trusted that project and the person heading it to not be shit, because they are now being shit, and people are right to call them out. Because they’re being shit.
Also you’re right, more people should donate to FLOSS projects that they love and use frequently, as do I. As someone with no programming knowledge, it’s all I can do aside from recommending your software to others. Wanna know one way to ensure I’ll not only withhold donations but warn others not to use or trust your software? Defending and/or using AI slop machines.
Yeah I do. This is a small, volunteer, open source developer creating something for our benefit & has found a way to ease their workload but the purity brigade demands they type everything out by hand from scratch b/c they have big feels & are reflexively reactionary about AI. Seems shitty to me.
Gotcha, I have a different definition of reactionary.
I interpreted your comment to mean: “these guys are mad the human who made the project is no longer writing the project in its entirety. So they feel the need to abandon the project and villify the author for using the big plagiarism tool.”
If I’m correct in my interpretation. I would agree with that comment, making me also reactionary by your definition.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
Do you blame people for having a knee-jerk reaction to unwelcome AI integration? Or would you mind elaboring on what you view as reactionary.
This isn’t an integration. They’re just using AI to write some of the code.
I don’t AI so I don’t know the lingo. I think it’s shit so I don’t want shit near my nice things.
Fair. But keep in mind if you ever use auto translate, Netflix recommendations, Google search (or ddg), Windows, Mac, android. iPhone. Any service hosted on AWS (like 70% of all sites) you’re indirectly using ai.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m with out. But it’s unavoidable.
I see it as one if those “no ethical consumption under capitalism” kinda things. You can’t avoid it because the people that control the thing are adding shit to the recipe.
This is a project released for free by volunteers we’re talking about, not a commercial service pushing hostile crap on users.
I think the dev in question is shitty for treating Lutris as their own fiefdom, but the mob are looking a gift horse in the mouth by attacking volunteers when they’re not willing to step up and contribute non-AI code themselves.
I think you mean a different idiom than “a gift horse in the mouth”
What’s wrong with it? Seems like the right metaphor.
People are complaining about the minutiae of something they’ve been given freely and don’t have to use.
“Looking a gift horse in the mouth” means that you’ve received a gift of some kind, but you’re giving it too much scrutiny. It kind of shows the giver of the gift that you’re not really appreciative of it - sometimes it’s better to smile and nod and thank them for the gift, and scrutinize it later.
I guess what you mean is that Lutris is the gift, but my first reading was that the opportunity to chastise a developer for using AI was the gift.
deleted by creator
Why are you making up quotes I didn’t say and don’t reflect my opinion in the slightest?
From the outside, it sure looks like you’re trying to flame and stir drama to address your own emotional state, rather than make any sort of coherent argument to persuade people to your line of thinking.
Yes. Theyre being reactionary.
Are these people even paying a single penny to the developer or are they just acting entitled?
Have they contributed at all to the project? Its foss, maybe they dhould open up their own PRs and fix it if they care so much.
Theyre welcome to fork it anytime they want and just not merge in any AI commits, if they can spot them, right?
But I bet you no one will actually do this, people will mald and act entitled and stamp their feet… and then keep using it anyways and never pay a cent to the dev.
Fuck em. The dev doesnt owe them shit.
The dev “owes us” as people to not be a shitty person, or at the very least, we should expect them not to be one. It absolutely is a slap in the face to people who trusted that project and the person heading it to not be shit, because they are now being shit, and people are right to call them out. Because they’re being shit.
Also you’re right, more people should donate to FLOSS projects that they love and use frequently, as do I. As someone with no programming knowledge, it’s all I can do aside from recommending your software to others. Wanna know one way to ensure I’ll not only withhold donations but warn others not to use or trust your software? Defending and/or using AI slop machines.
Yeah I do. This is a small, volunteer, open source developer creating something for our benefit & has found a way to ease their workload but the purity brigade demands they type everything out by hand from scratch b/c they have big feels & are reflexively reactionary about AI. Seems shitty to me.
Gotcha, I have a different definition of reactionary.
I interpreted your comment to mean: “these guys are mad the human who made the project is no longer writing the project in its entirety. So they feel the need to abandon the project and villify the author for using the big plagiarism tool.”
If I’m correct in my interpretation. I would agree with that comment, making me also reactionary by your definition.