Lutris desktop client. Forked from the last commit before AI was (to my understanding) used in the project.
  • graynk@discuss.tchncs.de
    41·
    12 hours ago

    The problem with forks like that is that the authors later realise the burden of having to maintain a complex piece of software and then they fizzle out.

    • QuizzaciousOtter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      9·
      7 hours ago

      Yeah, I’m pretty sure the vast majority of those “no AI” forks will die very quickly. I mean, what is even the best case scenario? The fork is on life support with some bug fixes maybe? Because I do not believe it will get more development than upstream. Besides, upstream developers will be able to take any new development they want from the “no AI” fork but obviously not the other way around.

      I’m not an AI-bro but I think it’s completely unrealistic to expect you will be able to avoid software developed with AI assistance nowadays and even moreso in the future.

  • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
    18·
    12 hours ago

    i think there are other good clients you guys can help with instead of forking an old version of lutris.

    • Twig@sopuli.xyzOPEnglish
      1·
      12 hours ago

      Are there any that let you choose between different versions/engines? E.g. with Diablo, you can use the GOG version, DeviluntionX or Belzebub.

      • TheAgeOfSuperboredom@lemmy.ca
        3·
        7 hours ago

        Are those different versions of the game? If so, isn’t it just a matter of putting files in the right place or running a particular executable?

        • Twig@sopuli.xyzOPEnglish
          1·
          2 hours ago

          With Lutris, it gives you (and automatically sets up) various options.

  • juipeltje@lemmy.world
    13·
    12 hours ago

    From an ideological point of view i respect the fact that people want software to stay free of AI, but realistically how feasible is it going to be to have something be completely free of it? If someone for example contributes to this project and they used AI assistance to write the code, but never disclose it, how would you know? When that happens this “minus-ai” fork will also have AI code in it and there’s nothing you can do about that it seems.

    • GaumBeist@lemmy.ml
      1·
      34 minutes ago

      realistically how feasible is it going to be to have something be completely free of it?

      It’ll be feasible if we encourage a culture of not using it. It doesn’t have to be the main mode of development — and all the big names can keep their slop generators — but as long as there remains a demand for slop-less software, there will be people willing to make it happen.

      There’s also the saying “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”: besides the fact that I don’t trust slop-coders to put in any more effort into architecture/security/performance than they do actually learning the languages and writing the code, I also hate that they are willing to fund giant data centers that deplete local reservoirs and cause blackouts for small communities. In this case, I don’t care if it’s “no ai at all” or “no ai as much as is practical,” because both are still better than “full steam ahead.”

    • TheAgeOfSuperboredom@lemmy.ca
      5·
      7 hours ago

      They likely won’t catch every bit of AI generated code, but I don’t think that’s the point. In my view the point is to take a stand and try. It also signals that the authors care about their code in a certain way.

      There are all sorts of things that are impossible to perfectly enforce, but that doesn’t mean we just give up. Insider trading is extremely difficult to prove, and I bet more people get away with it than don’t, but I still think making it illegal is a good policy.

  • bonenode@piefed.socialEnglish
    11·
    12 hours ago

    Wonderful to see the drama continue. Cannot await the surely totally sane reaction of the Lutris dev to this.

    But in general that’s what forks are for. Also great to see this in Codeberg.