Originally posted by @strycore in #6506: 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...
It’s paraphrasing, but that’s pretty much what he said:
Quite honestly, if that’s the level of bugs we’re dealing with due to our use of AI tools, that’s a pretty good deal. I’ve seen much worse, so much worse in code that we actually shipped in releases. And no AI was used to create those critical bugs.
In what way is what I said false? His statement describes the bugs as a “pretty good deal” because he’s seen “so much worse” in his code without the inclusion of AI. Therefore, he’s cool with AI generated bugs because his code is already full of bugs.
Do you think he’s not cool with AI generated bugs in Lutris? Do you think the code isn’t full of bugs? Do you think the reason he’s cool with AI generated bugs isn’t because his code is already full of bugs?
It certainly seems like all of those elements are in what he said. He knows that the AI is introducing bugs (I pointed out two bugs that it introduced in that thread), and he’s fine with it (he said it’s a pretty good deal), because the code base was already buggy before (he’s seen so much worse in code he’s shipped in the project).
He kept challenging everyone in that thread to find below average code pushed recently. I took him up on it, and looked through his last four commits (all attributed to Claude) and found two bugs. He is totally fine with that. If it were me, I would really rethink using a tool that introduces bugs in half of its commits.
Considering how often and how heated the topic comes up in lemmy (even though the actual discussion takes place at GitHub) this is some sort of bullying.
Instead of simply parting ways some are harassing the developers of a free software in order to gain exactly nothing.
I’m involved in that discussion because I like Lutris and don’t want the project to suffer because of the use of AI tools. The developer challenged people in that discussion (myself included) to find low quality code that had been pushed recently from the AI. I did. Two of his last four commits introduced bugs.
You ain’t a dev or a maintainer oof the project, so keep the discussion civil. Also stop trying to rally people for your “cause”. At this point, you are just bluntly trying to make someone miserable.
I have no intention of making him miserable. I don’t think he’s a bad person, unlike some other people in that discussion. In my opinion, he was uninformed about the dangers of AI generated code. He was also uninformed about the quality of AI generated code, thinking that it wasn’t introducing bugs. Now he’s informed, but he is still going to use the AI. I’m hoping that’s just because he’s being stubborn. But, that’s something that people should know, so they can choose whether or not to continue using Lutris.
I was and still am a fan of Lutris, but I have switched to Bottles. Bottles is still missing some features that Lutris has, but I just can’t trust Lutris’ code and devs anymore. It makes me really sad, because the project itself is really cool.
I honestly, genuinely hope that he will see what a bad idea the AI code is before the project reaches an unmaintainable state.
It’s paraphrasing, but that’s pretty much what he said:
Libel requires the statement to be false.
Holy shit you have AI derangement syndrome. If someone even mentions AI, then your instant reaction is to lie about it.
It is false because it is not what he said, and does not have the same meaning as what he said.
Indeed. And your statement that you now describe as “paraphrasing” was false.
In what way is what I said false? His statement describes the bugs as a “pretty good deal” because he’s seen “so much worse” in his code without the inclusion of AI. Therefore, he’s cool with AI generated bugs because his code is already full of bugs.
It is false because it is not what he said, and does not have the same meaning as what he said.
Moreover, your misrepresentation is damaging to the developer’s reputation, and misleading to everyone reading here. Please stop.
In what way is what I said false?
Do you think he’s not cool with AI generated bugs in Lutris? Do you think the code isn’t full of bugs? Do you think the reason he’s cool with AI generated bugs isn’t because his code is already full of bugs?
It certainly seems like all of those elements are in what he said. He knows that the AI is introducing bugs (I pointed out two bugs that it introduced in that thread), and he’s fine with it (he said it’s a pretty good deal), because the code base was already buggy before (he’s seen so much worse in code he’s shipped in the project).
He kept challenging everyone in that thread to find below average code pushed recently. I took him up on it, and looked through his last four commits (all attributed to Claude) and found two bugs. He is totally fine with that. If it were me, I would really rethink using a tool that introduces bugs in half of its commits.
people are asking how exactly it is not/does not have the same meaning as what he said
Considering how often and how heated the topic comes up in lemmy (even though the actual discussion takes place at GitHub) this is some sort of bullying.
Instead of simply parting ways some are harassing the developers of a free software in order to gain exactly nothing.
I’m involved in that discussion because I like Lutris and don’t want the project to suffer because of the use of AI tools. The developer challenged people in that discussion (myself included) to find low quality code that had been pushed recently from the AI. I did. Two of his last four commits introduced bugs.
I know that you are involved.
You ain’t a dev or a maintainer oof the project, so keep the discussion civil. Also stop trying to rally people for your “cause”. At this point, you are just bluntly trying to make someone miserable.
There is nothing to gain for you.
I have no intention of making him miserable. I don’t think he’s a bad person, unlike some other people in that discussion. In my opinion, he was uninformed about the dangers of AI generated code. He was also uninformed about the quality of AI generated code, thinking that it wasn’t introducing bugs. Now he’s informed, but he is still going to use the AI. I’m hoping that’s just because he’s being stubborn. But, that’s something that people should know, so they can choose whether or not to continue using Lutris.
I was and still am a fan of Lutris, but I have switched to Bottles. Bottles is still missing some features that Lutris has, but I just can’t trust Lutris’ code and devs anymore. It makes me really sad, because the project itself is really cool.
I honestly, genuinely hope that he will see what a bad idea the AI code is before the project reaches an unmaintainable state.
Come on… how condescending are you? He is a well established developer. He is not uninformed.
He just made a decision that you don’t share. But the good part is: you don’t have to.