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.
The difference is that marketing is trying to sell you things to part you from your money. How much does Lutris cost? Yeah, it’s free and open source, so the motivations are completely different - including the motivations for using AI.
When it comes to the usage of both words, that difference you listed is completely arbitrary and obviously irrelevant. People also use the word “slop” to refer to commercial software (see: “Microslop”) and “spam” to refer to any sort of undesirable email being mass sent, even if non-commercial.
Unless you’re trying to argue something else; that the slop in this specific case is more justified. Then refer to the top comment in the chain; frankly the main issue here is not adding slop to their software, it’s the eagerness to treat users as braindead trash undeserving transparency.
When it comes to the usage of both words, that difference you listed is completely arbitrary and obviously irrelevant
What? No. Software is something people go looking for and choose to download, unless we’re talking about malware which I think is fair to say is obviously outside the bounds of this conversation. Spam emails are forced on people without their asking or looking for them. They’re not at all interchangeable or the same thing.
Most people don’t care how their software is written, just like they don’t care how their food is actually made. And by “most people” I don’t mean you or anyone else here on Lemmy, I mean the majority of people who use computers. You wouldn’t believe how technically illiterate and uncurious the average person is - that’s who I mean. Those people hate spam emails, but they don’t care if their email app was vibecoded with AI. They don’t even know the difference between AI code and hand-typed human code, and most of 'em probably think “more code is better so AI is better!”.
Unless you’re trying to argue something else; that the slop in this specific case is more justified.
Sort of. I’m saying that while I understand why AI disclosures are a good thing, I think that if a person is not paying for an application and they’re not contributing to its development, then that person can keep their opinions on the development process to themselves. They can take those opinions and go build something of their own to satisfy them.
it’s the eagerness to treat users as braindead trash undeserving transparency.
I simply don’t think that’s a fair characterisation, because it ignores how people treat the developers who use the tools in the first place. People who have no technical skills whatsoever are happy to loudly shit all over said developers and call their work garbage - work they’ve been doing for nothing.
I agree the initial response could have been approached better, but all of us have the benefit of judging in hindsight and from a distance. I can understand how their emotions got the better of them, while under fire like that. This looks distinctly different from the BookLore fiasco though, where the dev is trying to close up the source in retaliation.
I just wish people would find more reasonable targets for their ire, instead of rolling with the pitchforks-and-torches mentality. Individuals building open source software are not usually reasonable targets. I do think “good thing it’s easy to fork open source” is the right sentiment; this is why anything I build, I put up under the Unlicense, because as far as I’m concerned any utility someone can get from it is to the good.
What? No. Software is something people go looking for and choose to download, unless we’re talking about malware which I think is fair to say is obviously outside the bounds of this conversation. Spam emails are forced on people without their asking or looking for them.
Yeah, and that’s totally a criterion people use when labelling something “slop” or not, right? Right??? Oh wait, no, it isn’t.
They’re not at all interchangeable or the same thing.
That is not even remotely close to what I said. Not bothering further with a liar (or worse) who distorts what others say.
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.)
The difference is that marketing is trying to sell you things to part you from your money. How much does Lutris cost? Yeah, it’s free and open source, so the motivations are completely different - including the motivations for using AI.
When it comes to the usage of both words, that difference you listed is completely arbitrary and obviously irrelevant. People also use the word “slop” to refer to commercial software (see: “Microslop”) and “spam” to refer to any sort of undesirable email being mass sent, even if non-commercial.
Unless you’re trying to argue something else; that the slop in this specific case is more justified. Then refer to the top comment in the chain; frankly the main issue here is not adding slop to their software, it’s the eagerness to treat users as braindead trash undeserving transparency.
What? No. Software is something people go looking for and choose to download, unless we’re talking about malware which I think is fair to say is obviously outside the bounds of this conversation. Spam emails are forced on people without their asking or looking for them. They’re not at all interchangeable or the same thing.
Most people don’t care how their software is written, just like they don’t care how their food is actually made. And by “most people” I don’t mean you or anyone else here on Lemmy, I mean the majority of people who use computers. You wouldn’t believe how technically illiterate and uncurious the average person is - that’s who I mean. Those people hate spam emails, but they don’t care if their email app was vibecoded with AI. They don’t even know the difference between AI code and hand-typed human code, and most of 'em probably think “more code is better so AI is better!”.
Sort of. I’m saying that while I understand why AI disclosures are a good thing, I think that if a person is not paying for an application and they’re not contributing to its development, then that person can keep their opinions on the development process to themselves. They can take those opinions and go build something of their own to satisfy them.
I simply don’t think that’s a fair characterisation, because it ignores how people treat the developers who use the tools in the first place. People who have no technical skills whatsoever are happy to loudly shit all over said developers and call their work garbage - work they’ve been doing for nothing.
I agree the initial response could have been approached better, but all of us have the benefit of judging in hindsight and from a distance. I can understand how their emotions got the better of them, while under fire like that. This looks distinctly different from the BookLore fiasco though, where the dev is trying to close up the source in retaliation.
I just wish people would find more reasonable targets for their ire, instead of rolling with the pitchforks-and-torches mentality. Individuals building open source software are not usually reasonable targets. I do think “good thing it’s easy to fork open source” is the right sentiment; this is why anything I build, I put up under the Unlicense, because as far as I’m concerned any utility someone can get from it is to the good.
Yeah, and that’s totally a criterion people use when labelling something “slop” or not, right? Right??? Oh wait, no, it isn’t.
That is not even remotely close to what I said. Not bothering further with a liar (or worse) who distorts what others say.
Edit: Screw it, not worth it. Blocked, please return the favour, cheers ‘n’ thanks.