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.
In my opinion, he should’ve left it as a co author. I think if you as a user have an ethical issue with Claude, that’s your choice and you can make the decision not to use lutris. I mostly agree with what he says until that part about removing Claude so “good luck finding it”.
It’s not about finding a difference for people (usually), it’s about how that model was trained on the work of others, without consent, for free, to then sell. He made his points about how much it helps, that it’s better than using Meta, Google, OpenAI, or Copilot and I think that’s probably true. But he made that case, so why then hide what Claude has done?
In gaming, Valve requires you to list if you have used AI in the creation of your game and you describe in what way. It’s not because the game will 100% of the time be absolute slop (right now it usually is), it’s so that the potential customer can be informed and choose to or not to support the use of AI in those products.
As far as I’m reading, most people who reviewed the actual code think it’s fine. So, again, I don’t see the point in hiding it other than being somewhat petty.
The point in hiding it was that it was being used, without harassment or complaint, right up until he added attribution which resulted in an avalanche of complaints which require resources to deal with. Discord, the forums and Github pull requests now require much more moderation labor, which takes away from the project.
People had no complaints about the code quality until he started adding AI attribution. So he removed the attribution.
Like he said, if people can’t tell the difference until he started marking the code AI assisted… then they don’t actually have an argument and are simply bringing anti-AI politics into the project.
Right, fair point with the training data.