Lutris maintainer use AI generated code for some time now. The maintainer also removed the co-authorship of Claude, so no one knows which code was generated by AI.
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.
Here’s the thing. The more you use AI to generate your code, the less likely you are to fully review all of it, understand what it’s doing and be able to fix it when bugs or exploits appear, or even know that they exist. So sure, it might work for now but what about in a couple of years of vibe coding it?
Then… we only use the versions that work. And someone can fork from there.
Would have been easier if the original dev(s) continued to work on it themselves, instead of sloppifying the code.
slippery slope fallacy
Technical debt is a very real thing that has been around for a long time and is well documented.
AI code is not old enough for the technical debt to have really hit hard yet.
It’s not a fallacy if the slope actually is slippery.
Except, of course, that this not an imagined or even unlikely outcome; so, no, by definition your link fits not apply.
Maybe read what you link???