A user asked on the official Lutris GitHub two weeks ago “is lutris slop now” and noted an increasing amount of “LLM generated commits”. To which the Lutris creator replied:
It’s only slop if you don’t know what you’re doing and/or are using low quality tools. But I have over 30 years of programming experience and use the best tool currently available. It was tremendously helpful in helping me catch up with everything I wasn’t able to do last year because of health issues / depression.
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.
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. Whether or not I use Claude is not going to change society, this requires changes at a deeper level, and we all know that nothing is going to improve with the current US administration.
While I’d prefer no AI assistance, I think it’s reasonable that a dev say “I do this shit for free. I have this amount of experience and I’m reviewing all it suggests and does thoroughly. Accept it or don’t use the software.”
Like I agree with the slop question, but for fucks sake at least try to have some bare minimum respect when talking with the people making something you use for free.
Personally, my issue (and it’s a fucking huge one in my opinion) is the spiteful removal of stating under future commit authorship when it’s used.
The specific commits effected should reasonably have extra scrutiny from other contributors and the community, regardless of your opinions about AI and related morality. Removal of it from commit authorship makes that impossible.
It also makes it that much more difficult for people to be aware that AI was used, which takes away the option of informed choice from users. Not ok.
I’m of the opinion that anyone using ai to write anything should be required to specify which parts were written by AI, if only because those parts are public domain since AI outputs can’t be protected by copyright.
Fine with me if they’re using it responsibly and it sounds like they are. Maybe let’s not dogpile on these incredibly generous maintainers we benefit from and expect them to pass stupid purity tests.
Nothing responsible about hiding AI commit authorship.
