But as you can see, the maintainer didn’t stop using them and will also now not disclose which commits have them. Humans are emotional creatures and part of being rational is acknowledging that. Folks can be critical of AI usage while phrasing the issue more tactfully and would likely see more success when doing so.
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.
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?
Aside
I’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.
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.
Regardless of your opinion on AI, it is not productive or helpful to open this as an issue.
Disagree. It drew attention to the fact that the maintainers of lutris are of questionable character and helped people like me understand that lutris should be avoided completely.
Maybe, I don’t know much about this tool or their practices. I only meant that it was factual that they were mentioning which commits had AI generated code in them.
Regardless of your opinion on AI, it is not productive or helpful to open this as an issue.
shame is a powerful weapon
i for one intend to keep making people feel bad for using slop generators
But as you can see, the maintainer didn’t stop using them and will also now not disclose which commits have them. Humans are emotional creatures and part of being rational is acknowledging that. Folks can be critical of AI usage while phrasing the issue more tactfully and would likely see more success when doing so.
Well, it used to be at least
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.
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,
Aside
I’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
@mentionsee 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.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.
Disagree. It drew attention to the fact that the maintainers of lutris are of questionable character and helped people like me understand that lutris should be avoided completely.
As the maintainer said, the commits with AI code were already specified. See one here. It was never a secret.
It was my impression that the AI stuff only started with a relatively recent update
Maybe, I don’t know much about this tool or their practices. I only meant that it was factual that they were mentioning which commits had AI generated code in them.
He now removed the code authorship from Claude lmao
Hence the past tense. I think it was pretty petty to do this.