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.
What decides if something is slop or not is the thing itself. It is not your “KwaLiFiKaShunz”. Bringing up “muh 30 years of XP lol lmao” means jack shit.
If he was co-authoring the code with Claude this means he submitted code made by Claude; he didn’t just ask for some examples and implement in his own way. The later would be far more reasonable than the former.
What he said about the problem being capitalism instead of the tool itself is, I believe, valid. However, it should be no excuse to unnecessarily feed that very same economic system, by paying for the bloody tool.
Finally. He could’ve fixed what people complained about, by removing the commits, so he would keep them happy. He could also stick to his guns, and say “no, I’m not changing it. The Claude code stays”. But he did neither; instead he’s hiding it from the users. That’s pretty much the same as saying “I’m going to treat users as gullible filth and easy to fool, instead of human beings deserving honesty.”
The way y’all overuse the word “slop” is like calling all e-mail “spam.” Both are supposed to refer to a deluge of nonsense nobody asked for. This author has an LLM in-the-loop, plainly on purpose and with purpose, and it seems to be working out.
If any interaction with spicy autocomplete is treated as equally bad, to the point of aggressive mockery - no kidding people will tune that out. It’s not constructive or sincere. It borders on abusive. How much coverage did this guy just get, where the comments are all ‘well if he’d just done [blank]–,’ and how many people actually believe that [blank] would result in fewer snide comments?
Even if it was the same conversation (as TrickDacy said, it isn’t), “you can’t avoid the harm completely” is no excuse to avoid causing at least some of that harm.
What decides if something is slop or not is the thing itself. It is not your “KwaLiFiKaShunz”. Bringing up “muh 30 years of XP lol lmao” means jack shit.
If he was co-authoring the code with Claude this means he submitted code made by Claude; he didn’t just ask for some examples and implement in his own way. The later would be far more reasonable than the former.
What he said about the problem being capitalism instead of the tool itself is, I believe, valid. However, it should be no excuse to unnecessarily feed that very same economic system, by paying for the bloody tool.
Finally. He could’ve fixed what people complained about, by removing the commits, so he would keep them happy. He could also stick to his guns, and say “no, I’m not changing it. The Claude code stays”. But he did neither; instead he’s hiding it from the users. That’s pretty much the same as saying “I’m going to treat users as gullible filth and easy to fool, instead of human beings deserving honesty.”
A good thing open software can be forked.
The way y’all overuse the word “slop” is like calling all e-mail “spam.” Both are supposed to refer to a deluge of nonsense nobody asked for. This author has an LLM in-the-loop, plainly on purpose and with purpose, and it seems to be working out.
If any interaction with spicy autocomplete is treated as equally bad, to the point of aggressive mockery - no kidding people will tune that out. It’s not constructive or sincere. It borders on abusive. How much coverage did this guy just get, where the comments are all ‘well if he’d just done [blank]–,’ and how many people actually believe that [blank] would result in fewer snide comments?
But even if he goes metaphorically vegan, his code is still going to feed the AIs.
Even if it was the same conversation (as TrickDacy said, it isn’t), “you can’t avoid the harm completely” is no excuse to avoid causing at least some of that harm.
Which is an entirely different conversation that has nothing to do with this one.