Sincerely... if you can give a single shit about ai in code, you should be able to tell it was used. If you cannot differentiate human from ai authored code, you do not have a seat at the table. jeer from the soap boxes. code is not art. code is code. get over it. does it compile or run and do the thing, cool, fuck cares who or what wrote it. clutching pearls yall cant even define.

I don’t think this is going to go the way they thing it will. 

Oh great the campaign of harassment is continuing. Keep going guys, hopefully you can get another dev to quit a project, and I know none of the people commenting here have what it takes to fork and maintain it.

You wouldn't be doing anything different if you were getting paid by corporate interests to hurt the open source movement. Great job you can be proud of yourselves.

The Lutris team is small, not corporate, not speed obsessed, etc. I'm inclined to trust them to be among those developers who can use generated code without slopping nonsense all over a code base they know they will probably be stuck maintaining.

People use LLMs to code now, this is not news. Why is claude taking credit in the first place?

Been chewing this since yesterday. Okay, here is my two cents:

• yes, what LLM companies are doing is a problem. So dropping anything that has anything to do with their products is a sane way to make a statement
• yes, LLMs can be used effectively in development. Whether Lutris author has been using them well - I don't know. Guess won't bother to check either, have other things to do
• yes, doing the stunt with "good luck guessing what is what" is bullshit

Net total, given I've already dropped GNOME because of their culture: guess now I am dropping Lutris. Not because of AI per se, but because of "fuck you" move

I would never use the product, just for that very line...

Whether or not I use Claude is not going to change society

This gives me shopping cart theory vibes. I don't usually base my moral compass based on whether my action will have some kind of measurable impact, but whether I believe it's the right thing to do. After the intense doubling down in that discussion thread I'm definitely steering clear of lutris. It costs me very little effort to avoid projects that do icky things I don't want to encourage (even though it may not have a measurable impact~)

It's not my decision wether lutris has ai code in it or not. The maintainers and contributors can decide what works for them, that's how open source works. I never found a use for lutris and maybe that's why I don't care.

It's completely a coincidence that all games are no longer working in Lutris here, on multiple machines, after upgrading from 0.5.19 to 0.5.20. Weird.

I downgraded and everything works again. I did not try 0.5.22 or the quickly removed 0.5.21.

I'm now assuming it all is and deleting Lutris.

What a moron.

Tell me to not use your software without telling me to not use your software.

How to drive off users and contributors in one easy step!

They are free to do what they want to on their repo.

We are free to fork if need arises.

Personally I don't like projects not showing what AI has made. And most of Claude was made on stolen code. Its against the open source license they themselves use https://github.com/lutris/lutris/blob/master/LICENSE

But almost no one actually enforces the license until the big companies show up. I hope they change their minds, but until then, im going to stop using/contributing for a while.

"This works perfectly, which is why I'm removing all ways to audit what it has contributed."

• their repo (checked the commit graphs and basically they did most of the work, 2nd dev agree with them, covers 90%+) their choice of governance
• their repo, their choice of tooling
• I genuinely believe they think are doing "good enough" code and they are probably right about it in their context
• they do have fair points on the economical power dynamics, namely that yes Anthropic is slightly less worst than Meta, Google, OpenAI, Microsoft, etc (... but IMHO honestly that's a damn low bar)

but also

• obfuscation rather than discussion (closed the issue and limited to maintainers only) so clearly the signal is precisely "my repo, my choice"
• no mention of the copyright or license washing
• no mention of ecological impact

so I would personally consider instead Bottles, GOG (have different problems), Steam (obviously not open source and basically monopolistic position), etc.

Overall I think preventing discussion is unhealthy (even though sadly sometimes needed, here I lack context, maybe the issue poster did this numerous time on other platforms, title definitely was provocative) but removing provenance is NEVER a good choice. They want to use Claude on their repo? Absolutely fine (even though not to me) but hiding it makes it instantly untrustworthy to me. In fact I even argued in the past that even though I personally do not use GenAI/LLMs (for coding or otherwise) except for testing it should always be disclosed precisely so that others can make THEIR choice in consequence, including using or contributing, cf https://fabien.benetou.fr/Analysis/AgainstPoorArtificialIntelligencePractices

is lutris slop now

i can't help but notice quite a lot of LLM generated commits, is lutris slop now or will @strycore see the error of their ways

Regardless of your opinion on AI, it is not productive or helpful to open this as an issue.

I'm kind of torn on this, because on the one side I can see the developer's troubles. If they have 30 years of experience and they considered the impact of using it they will most likely know how to use it properly and ethically. Indeed many of the issues people have with AI are a kind of redirected anger, when really they are issues with capitalism, incompetency, or digital illiteracy. And the person posting the issue seems purely there to fan that flame rather than actually contribute. Something maintainers could use just as little as slop authored PRs.

But on the other hand, being open about the usage is a must. It's the price to pay for going against the grain. If your ideals and means are pure, they should be defendable and scrutinizable to reasonable people, and there should be no issue with that in the long term. Hiding the usage will create doubt about authorship, and make defenses harder to point at, while it won't stop the horde.

That's a weird way to run a community facing project, if you want to engage the community that is.

If you treat it like your own personal hobby, you can do whatever you like.

So it's all compromised, gotcha.

If it's good I don't care. Those people know what they're doing

Here’s my issue with this specifically. It makes Lutris very vulnerable to being considered entirely public domain:

https://github.com/lutris/lutris/issues/6538