Thanks for the bug reports!! 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. Now we’re dealing with edge cases. Like that whole extractor bug for AppImages. This was introduced during the development of the GameJolt service which can have a few different ways to package games. The key here is to have a very solid and complete test plan and minor bugs like that will get caught.
This is absolutely not the “technical debt” and “bloat” and “vulnerable code” I’ve been hearing about. Those are bugs that aren’t nearly as bad as the ones we’ve been used to over the year. And they’ll manage to get fixed like every other bug.
The full comment, nowhere does it day he’s “fine” with AI generated bugs, only that the frequency of them is comparable with non-AI code.
(Not that I support his actions, ofc)
“that’s a pretty good deal” is him saying he’s fine with those bugs.
He’s also heavily downplaying the severity of that bug. If a user hit that bug, it would keep copying that AppImage file over and over until it filled their disk and crashed the app. Then the user would have to figure out what happened and where all those duplicates were to fix their system, all while things were falling apart because nothing could write to the disk.
Many systems cannot successfully boot if the disk is full, so those users would probably have to reinstall their system if it crashed or they rebooted, and they didn’t know how to navigate a root shell. Even if the system didn’t crash, many apps won’t start if the disk is full, so the user is just going to have a really bad time overall.
Later in the thread, another user defended the severity of the bug by pointing to other bugs that Lutris has shipped which have damaged their users’ systems.
It’s also worth noting that I only reviewed four of his commits and found two bugs, one severe. So the frequency of these bugs seems much higher than without AI tools. Who knows how many others the AI has introduced, but I’m not going to review all of his slop if he can’t even be bothered to do it properly before he commits it.
I think Ricky will switch to Bottles.
I wonder if Bazzite will stop shipping Lutris because of this
I never really used Lutris, but I liked what it was for so I never removed it, but when the news broke I went and took the 3 seconds to uninstall it
And how do you do that? Everything I saw said “Don’t, it’s too difficult. And if you do, your system will just run worse than if you ignore that it exists.”
I’ve enjoyed Bazzite in my first few months off of Windows, but between this and a few minor annoyances with just how immutable an immutable distro is, I’m having second thoughts on my choice of distro.
Last time I’ve tried Bazzite, Lutris was installed as a system package, so you can’t easily uninstall it without rebasing the system image
Personally I didn’t like Lutris’ reliance on Proton and the Steam runtimes, at this point I could just use Steam directly as my launcher for third-party titles
Personally I didn’t like Lutris’ reliance on Proton and the Steam runtimes
What exactly are the alternatives? Wine isn’t optimized for gaming and Wine-GE isn’t being developed anymore in favor of Proton-GE.
at this point I could just use Steam directly as my launcher for third-party titles
Lutris is much more light-weight than Steam, which is basically just six chrome processes at this point.
They better not… Its far to fundamental to the system to get eid of it over proclivities about AI.
I would kind of like to be able to uninstall it from my Bazzite box.
If he can’t be bothered with the project anymore, just give it up, don’t resort to shitty ai.
Sadly, it seems to be fairly common to have at least some AI slop code now. E.g. lemmy itself appears to be planning to do so too.
It’s like having slop would get you some prize.
define slop
thats a real definition but the person i replied to, wasnt using it in that way.
It’s easier to troll if you wait until your account is over a month old ;)
i am not trolling. it was a stupid comment
This is bait.
brokenglasszero
last week
It’s one thing to decide to use AI tools and such for the work you’re doing. You can do that, and I don’t have to like it and both are fine. The real painful thing about this is “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.”Because you’ve decided to do this, we can’t even fork it and we have no idea if we’re even adhering to the license properly, no idea where the code came from, etc… You’ve basically poisoned the Lutris source code to spite everyone and it feels incredibly against the entire spirit of what open source should be. It’s frustrating to seeing a project I really enjoyed taking a turn like this, far more so than the usage of AI alone.
He readded the attribution last week -
https://github.com/lutris/lutris/discussions/6530#discussioncomment-16107836
If he really means it like this, then this person is no longer trustworthy for me.
Is lutris even used anymore? I would assume with proton being as good as it is now, lutris is kinda useless.
You use lutris with proton.
According to Flathub it gets over 75k downloads a month.
Crazy ngl.
I’m glad you didn’t lie about thinking that was crazy!
Lutris is like heroic or steam: it’s essentially the downloader and launcher for games that are then run by proton.
That’s not what he said.
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.
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.
Libel requires the statement to be false.
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.
These people are ridiculous. This is an open source side project, if people don’t want “ai slop” in their app, then maybe they should fork the project and maintain it themselves.
They can’t fork it now because the fact that the AI commits aren’t labeled as such means there’s no way to tell which need to be removed.
They can’t fork it now because the fact that the AI commits aren’t labeled as such means there’s no way to tell which need to be removed.
So… they can’t do that because they can’t tell the difference between the human code and the AI’s code? So that means that either A. The human code is also slop or B. The AI’s code is on par with the human’s code. This comment really proves that this aversion to AI is purely ideological.
Based on the thread I originally linked, and the dev’s response, with regard to Lutris, I think the answer is A.
Being able to see a difference in code quality is one thing; being able to prove who wrote the code for purposes like license compliance is another.
