A user asked on the official Lutris GitHub two weeks ago “is lutris slop now” and noted an increasing amount of “LLM generated commits”. To which the Lutris creator replied:
It’s only slop if you don’t know what you’re doing and/or are using low quality tools. But I have over 30 years of programming experience and use the best tool currently available. It was tremendously helpful in helping me catch up with everything I wasn’t able to do last year because of health issues / depression.
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 implemented in a worse way but it was AI that bought all the RAM, it was OpenAI. It was not AI that stole copyrighted content, it was Facebook. It wasn’t AI that laid off thousands of employees, it’s deluded executives who don’t understand that this tool is an augmentation, not a replacement for humans.
I’m not a big fan of having to pay a monthly sub to Anthropic, I don’t like depending on cloud services. But a few months ago (and I was pretty much at my lowest back then, barely able to do anything), I realized that this stuff was starting to do a competent job and was very valuable. And at least I’m not paying Google, Facebook, OpenAI or some company that cooperates with the US army.
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. Whether or not I use Claude is not going to change society, this requires changes at a deeper level, and we all know that nothing is going to improve with the current US administration.
Open source stuff is awesome and I really like people improving Linux in their spare time
But, to do it this way is basically saying “fuck you” to the community which is fucked up.
Could have talked about how AI helps him or how he uses it for templates or whatever and damn even if I didn’t agree with those points either that’s a lot better than being like “alright good luck finding it now then bitch”
I wouldn’t mess with anything this guy does anymore after this.
Are you talking about his way of communicating or about his AI use? I think it could have been said a bit more level headed, but I mostly agree with what he’s said. I also see no issue with the part “good luck finding it then” that seems to sound malicious to you. To me this means “if you can’t find a difference in quality, your whole complaint is invalid because there basically is no difference in quality”. Yes, it’s still AI and should not be viewed as more than a knowledgeable intern, yada yada, but I hope the point comes across…
If there’s no difference in quality why obfuscate it? Why hide something that you think is a valuable tool if your code can speak for itself?
He could have used that opportunity to take a standing his own way “this is what I am doing and if you don’t like it feel free to make a fork but I think this is blown out of proportion for: (reasons he could list his opinions on)”
But being like “good luck finding it now” is 100% malicious in this context. Or if malicious is too strong of a word for this, its definitely not user friendly at all.
And certainly not very “open”.
I don’t see it as obfuscation if there is no underlying difference. Why treat working code differently depending on the source if what matters is that it works (which it does by definition). Of course there has to be more quality control if AI is able to produce more code, but I don’t think that’s the point here right? Why highlight the different sources of the code if, as you said, the code can speak for itself. What’s the difference to you if you can’t tell them apart?
To be honest I don’t give a shit if a dev uses AI or not. As long as the code does what it is suppost to. In my personal experience AI, while still not anywhere near to capabilitys of a decent dev, can sometimes find and fix errors that I would have missed.
When we write code we use a compiler to translate it into other code that the computer can understand. Now we tell AI to write code that is then compiled into other code that the computer can understand.
It seems very similar at the end of the day. The problem is it makes the process easier. That’s what everyone is so upset about. And that’s only an issue because we don’t feel special anymore. It sucks but I’m sure it will pass. Even if it takes a generation
Or at least create boilerplate, test cases, etc.
Does everything have to be a god damn culture war now?! I really don’t give a fuck how people do their work. Judge the outcome not the workflow. No one gave a damn how sloppy some developers hacked together solutions that are widely used. But suddenly it’s an issue if coding agents are used? WTF.
Stop the damn polarization for completely irrelevant things; we get polarized enough for political reasons; we don’t have to bring even more dissent into our communities and fuck each other up with in-fighting.
AI has caused plenty of headaches for developers. This isn’t some culture war shit.
That is for each developer to decide, if they can handle it or not.
As I said: judge the result, not the workflow.
judge the result, not the workflow.
This kind of seems like bad advice in general. The process to create a result is often extremely important to be aware of. For example, if possible, I would like to not consume products built with slave labor.
The thing is, you’re conflating ethical and practical concerns here. The commenter you’re responding to is clearly talking about the practical aspects of using AI tools.
If you have a fundamental moral issue with AI that is entirely independent of how efficacious it is, that’s fine. That’s a completely reasonable position to hold. But don’t fall into the trap of wanting every use of genAI to be impractical because it aligns with your morality to feel that way.
If this is an ethical stance that you truly hold, you should be willing to believe that using these tools is bad even when they’re effective. But a lot of people instead have to insist that every use of AI is impractical, in the face of any evidence to the contrary, because they’ve talked themselves into believing that on some fundamental level. Like “If AI is ever useful, that means I’m wrong about it being immoral.”
As I said: judge the result, not the workflow.
I’ve tested AI myself and seen the results. I’ll judge how I see fit.
I am not talking about the result of the AI. I am talking about Lutris. If the code that ends up in the repo is fine, it doesn’t matter if it was the author, an agent, or an agent followed by a ton of cleanup by the author. If the code is shit it also doesn’t matter if it was an incompetent AI or an incompetent human. Shitty code is shitty, good code is good. The result matters.
There’s a problem with that. The vast majority of Linux users are probably more tech savvy than average but I’d wager not all of them or even the vast majority have the skills to vet the code.
Lots of the people in the gaming space who are having Lutris suggested/recommended to them are not going in to check that code for problems. They install the flatpak on move on with their lives.
It appears (from what I’ve read which isn’t necessarily the end all be all) that the people taking exception to the use of AI to code Lutris are doing so because they do decompile and vet code.
My understanding is that it’s harder to get AI code in general because when it hallucinates it may do so in ways that appear correct on the surface, and or do so in ways that don’t even give a significant indication of what that code is attempting to do. This is the problem with vibe coding in general from my understanding and it becomes harder and harder even for senior code engineers to check the output because of the lack of a frame of reference.
You’re asking people who don’t have the skills to ignore people who do have the skills who are sounding the alarm.
I get that this person is a single person writing code and disseminating it for free. I get that we should be thankful for free and open software. I fully understand why this person might use AI to help with coding.
I understand that they are upset about the backlash. But that was a very much foreseeable consequence of the credits they gave the AI (a choice they made), and honestly the use of AI (which might have been called out later on if they hadn’t credited it).
They shot themselves in the foot with the part of their response that was flippant and a “fuck you” to anyone who might find the use of AI concerning.
There’s also the fact that AI is something that a lot of people in the Linux community at large seem to already be boycotting and boycotting derivatives of it make sense.
Just because you create something for free doesn’t mean people have to use it. Or that people aren’t free to boycott it.
Thanks for that long answer. I agree completely with the second half of it. I also agree with most of the first half of it, but I have to add a remark to it:
My understanding is that it’s harder to get AI code in general because when it hallucinates it may do so in ways that appear correct on the surface, and or do so in ways that don’t even give a significant indication of what that code is attempting to do. This is the problem with vibe coding in general from my understanding and it becomes harder and harder even for senior code engineers to check the output because of the lack of a frame of reference.
That is mostly true, but also depends on the usage. You don’t have to tell an agent to “develop feature X” and then go for a coffee. You can issue relatively narrow scoped prompts that yield small amounts of changes/code which are far easier to review. You can work that way in small iterations, making it completely possible to follow along and adjust small things instead of getting a big ball of mud to entangle.
And while it’s true that not everyone is able to vet code, that was also true before and without coding agents. Yet people run random curl-piped-to-bash commands they copy from some website because it says it will install whatever. They install something from flathub without looking at the source (not even talking about chain of trust for the publishing process here). There is so much bad code out there written by people who are not really good engineers but who are motivated enough to put stuff together. They also made and make ugly mistakes that are hard to spot and due to bad code quality hard to review.
The main risk of agents is, that they also increase the speed of these developers which means they pump out even more bad code. But the underlying issue existed before and agents don’t automatically mean something is bad. That would also be dangerous to believe that, because that might enforce even more the feeling of security when using a piece of code that was (likely) written without any AI influence. But that’s just not true; this code could be as harmful or even more harmful. You simply don’t know if you don’t review it. And as you said: most people don’t.
Culture war? Lol
Yes, the observation that software quality seems negatively impacted by ai use is not allowed to be expressed, because you don’t observe it.
The culture war part is the call to boycott a project or shit on its author because they use coding agents, as is done throughout these comments. The whole separation into “those who use AI are bad” and “those who hate AI are good” is a culture war. A needless one at that.
Is flat vs. round Earth a culture war in your mind?
The way flat earthers act? Yes. They treat it as a culture war. Just like anti-vaxers.
TIL fact-based opinions and the arguments that come from them are “culture wars”.
I also brought facts and objective reasoning, yet I get downvoted.
Yet anecdotal comments like “I tested it myself and it sucks” get upvoted; apparently simply because it fits the own worldview.
That’s not polarization to you?
It’s for sure a polarizing topic, I just don’t see how it’s a culture war. “Sub-culture war” maybe?
Ok maybe I mis-use the word. If that’s the case, sorry about that. But I hope my point comes across anyway: I really really dislike that the community (or multiple communities, even) get split between people who are ok with AI and who are against AI. This is, IMO, completely unnecessary. That doesn’t mean everyone should be ok with it, but we should not judge or condemn each other because of a different opinion on the matter.
If you notice a project goes downhill, it’s fine to criticize the author (or the whole project) for the degredation in quality. If there are strong indicators that AI is involved, by all means leave a snarky remark about that while complaining. But ultimately it’s the fuckup of a human.
What you’re taking issue with though is deeper than ai. It’s online discourse that is so rude and nuance-less.
In any case, this thread is full of people saying things like “that’s his right to do this but he communicated poorly about this” and getting piles of upvotes. So, yes ai is very polarizing in this corner of the Internet, but I think it’s much more at issue here that people don’t like his handling of it. I know that personally if it weren’t for that I probably would’ve thought “hmm sounds sketchy to use ai in a product thousands of people depend on” and kept scrolling. But no, he was a dick about it and is now hiding his use of ai moving forward. So the people who hate AI are extra pissed about it. Likely because they fear others will follow that lead and enshittify the software they currently enjoy.
As I’ve said in an earlier thread, AI over engineers code and hallucinates APIs that don’t exist. Furthermore, hallucinations themselves are a very well studied phenomenon that has proven difficult to combat. People have very legit compliments about AI that you seem to be determined to dismiss as nothing more than a culture war.
And why is that a problem?
Google searches also usually generate mostly useless results, which is impossible to combat. Thankfully the person doing the search knows what they are looking for, can try different solutions, and learn from multiple results to get to a working solution.
Why do you consider AI different? Nobody is expecting it always give correct solutions, just like nobody is expecting Googling something to always give the correct solution.
I’m not saying AI is useful, but I’m saying that a tool being fallible doesn’t make it useless. So I’m wondering why do you consider AI different? If Googling is fine even though you need to checks multiple results before finding something useful, why is searching with AI held to a higher standard? Genuine question. Because I agree with your critique of AI, I just don’t agree the critique means no one should ever use it. There are much less reliable tools than AI, that are still useful at times.
But those issues get determined by reviews and tests. You determined these issues and worked against them, why do you think the author of Lutris is not able to? Neither I nor the author says anyone should use AI produced results as is (i.e vibe code).
Yeah, this is actually one of the good things a technology like this can do.
He’s dead right, in terms of slop, if it’s someone with training and experience using a tool, it doesn’t matter if that tool is vim or claude. It ain’t slop if it’s built right.
It ain’t slop if it’s built right.
Yeah but the problem is, is it? They absolutely insist that we use AI at work, which is not only insane concept in and of itself, but the problem is that if I have to nanny it to make sure it doesn’t make a mistake then how is it a useful product?
He says it helps him get work done he wouldn’t otherwise do, but how’s that possible? how is it possible that he is giving every line of code the same scrutiny he would if he wrote it himself, if he himself admits that he would never have got around to writing that code had the AI not done it? The math ain’t matching on this one.
the problem is that if I have to nanny it to make sure it doesn’t make a mistake then how is it a useful product?
When was the last time you coded something perfectly? “If I have to nanny you to make sure you don’t make a mistake, then how are you a useful employee?” See how that doesn’t make sense. There’s a reason why good development shops live on the backs of their code reviews and review practices.
The math ain’t matching on this one.
The math is just fine. Code reviews, even audit-level thorough ones, cost far less time than doing the actual coding.
There’s also something to be said about the value in being able to tell an LLM to go chew on some code and tests for 10 minutes while I go make a sandwich. I get to make my sandwich, and come back, and there’s code there. I still have to review it, point out some mistakes, and then go back and refill my drink.
And there’s so much you can customize with personal rules. Don’t like its coding style? Write Markdown rules that reflect your own style. Have issues with it tripping over certain bugs? Write rules or memories that remind it to be more aware of those bugs. Are you explaining a complex workflow to it over and over again? Explain it once, and tell it to write the rules file for you.
All of that saves more and more time. The more rules you have for a specific project, the more knowledge it retains on how code for that project, and the more experience you gain in how to communicate to an entity that can understand your ideas. You wouldn’t believe how many people can’t rubberduck and explain proper concepts to people, much less LLMs.
LLMs are patient. They don’t give a shit if you keep demanding more and more tweaks and fixes, or if you have to spend a bit of time trying to explain a concept. Human developers would get tired of your demands after a while, and tell you to fuck off.
The math is just fine. Code reviews, even audit-level thorough ones, cost far less time than doing the actual coding.
But the problem never was typing in the actual code. The majority of coding is understanding the problem you’re trying to solve and figuring out a good solution. If you let the AI do the thinking for you, then you’re building AI slop. You can’t review your way out of it because a proper review still requires that level of understanding the problem. If you just let the AI do the typing for you, there’s very little to be gained there as the time spent typing is negligible.
AI may be good at building simple, boilerplate-level code. But that’s what we have junior developers for. Junior developers we need because they grow into medior and senior developers.
If you let the AI do the thinking for you, then you’re building AI slop.
No, for major projects, you start out with a plan. I may spend upwards of 2-3 hours just drafting a plan with the LLM, figuring out options, asking questions when it’s an area I don’t have top-familiarity with, crafting what the modules are going to look like. It’s not slop when you’re planning out what to do and what your end result is supposed to be.
People who talk this way have zero experience with actually using LLMs, especially coding models.
Well, I’m not a code monkey, between dyslexia and an aging brain. But if it’s anything like the tiny bit of coding I used to be able to do (back in the days of basic and pascal), you don’t really have to pore over every single line. Only time that’s needed is when something is broken. Otherwise, you’re scanning to keep oversight, which is no different than reviewing a human’s code that you didn’t write.
Look at it like this; we automated assembly of machines a long time ago. It had flaws early on that required intense supervision. The only difference here on a practical level is about how the damn things learned in the first place. Automating code generation is way more similar to that than llms that generate text or images that aren’t logical by nature.
If the code used to train the models was good, what it outputs will be no worse in scale than some high school kid in an ap class stepping into their first serious challenges. It will need review, but if the output is going to be open source to begin with, it’ll get that review even if the project maintainers slip up.
And being real, lutris has been very smooth across the board while using the generated code so far. So if he gets lazy, it could go downhill; but that could happen if he gets lazy with his own code.
Another concept that I am more familiar with, that does relate. Writing fiction can take months. Editing fiction usually takes days, and you can still miss stuff (my first book has typos and errors to this day because of the aforementioned dyslexia and me not having a copy editor).
My first project back in the eighties in basic took me three days to crank out during the summer program I was in. The professor running the program took an hour to scan and correct that code.
Maybe I’m too far behind the various languages, but I really can’t see it being a massively harder proposition to scan and edit the output of an llm.
You do have to consider that this is an opensource developer creating something free in his free time. The app is also not life or death. Meaning, his quality standards are UNDERSTANDABLY not as high as if he was working for money on a banks money system.
In the end, all of the complainers are welcome to do the work themselves. That way, he won’t have to use AI at all.
slop is slop.
microslop
slopware
slopity slop slop.
And talking in absolutes without looking for nuance is not mature nor does it use any form of critical thinking.
I’m sorry. you’re absolutely right. I shouldn’t have said that.
It is awesome that you left the previous comment in place. Mad props!
Lmao I see what you did there
AI is immeasurably shitty, both in terms of code quality and of morality. The fact that this developer is hiding his use of it from his community is despicable. I will never use Lutris again, nor will I allow PRs from this developer on any repos of mine. Fuck AI, and fuck strycore (deceitful bastard and Lutris “developer”).
immeasurably shitty? go touch some grass.
There hasn’t been anything I haven’t been able to run between Heroic and Steam. I didn’t like using lutris anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don’t know what Lutris is so I guess I’ll continue to not use it.
It’s an automated tool for pulling the latest fixes to get a game running as well as it possibly can with as little fuss as possible. Basically a bunch of scripts to automatically pull mods and configuration options and such, especially for Linux compatibility.
I really hate this new trend of FOSS developers being attacked and harassed for using AI. You might not like if they are using AI. Or you might not like AI at all, but there’s no reason to harass people who are providing you free software. Let them develop it like they want. If you don’t like that they used AI, use another software. Or fork the software before they started using AI. But attacking people like that is not okay on so many levels. It’s not okay to attack people for the software they are using. It’s not okay to attack developers providing a free service and it’s not okay to attack people at all.
Transparency. The developer lied and then stopped crediting Claude.
That’s twisting the order of events.
The developer was marking code when AI was used.
Anti-AI drones started harassing him in Discord, the forums and Github PRs
The developer stopped marking code when AI was used.
The Anti-AI assholes are not participating in development in good faith, this is a harassment campaign. He’s taking steps to mitigate the harassment.
The fault and blame here is entirely on the people who thought it was okay to dog pile on a volunteer developer.
AI is actively destroying the environment and harming people. Data centers have been caught using methane burner generators (which are banned for use by the EPA) which significantly increase health risk to residents that live nearby (cancer and asthma rates already significantly increased). Then you have the ridiculous effects it is having on computer hardware markets, energy and water infrastructure and prices.
Then after all of that, the AI themselves are hallucinating somewhere in the neighborhood of 25% of the time, and multiple studies have found that people that use them regularly are losing their own skills.
I can’t figure out why people would choose to use them. I can’t figure out why programming is the one place where people that might have otherwise been considered experts in the field are excited to use them. Writers, artists, lawyers, doctors, basically every other professional field that AI companies have suggested these would be good for, they get trashed by experts in the fields for making garbage. I have a hard time believing the only thing AI can do well is write code when it sucks so badly at everything else it does. Does development suck this much? Do developers have so little idea what they are doing that this seems like a good idea?
If you’re honestly asking, LLMs are much better at coding than any other skill right now. On one hand there’s a ton of high quality open source training data that appropriated, on the other code is structured language so is very well suited for what models “are”. Plus, code is mechanically verifiable. If you have a bunch of tests, or have the model write tests, it can check its work as it goes.
Practically, the new high end models, GPT 5.4 or Claude Opus 4.6, can write better code faster than most people can type. It’s not like 2 years ago when the code mostly wouldn’t build, rather they can write hundreds or thousands of lines of code that works first try. I’m no blind supporter of AI, and it’s very emotionally complicated watching it after years honing the craft, but for most tasks it’s simple reality that you can do more with AI than without it. Whether it’s higher quality, higher volume, or integrating knowledge you don’t have.
Professionally I don’t feel like I have a choice, if I want to stay employed in the field at least.
Professionally I don’t feel like I have a choice, if I want to stay employed in the field at least.
On the contrary!
I’ve seen quite a number of “AI cleanup specialist” job offerings so far, and even a few consulting positions on training juniors away from using AI in development.
(No, I have not seen any position open on training management away from using AI…)
Im.not against the usage of AI in general. The problem only comes up if the human literally relies on it, but if you are using it for learning, quickly scrolling documentation or make code in a critical manner and with years of normal programming experience, that’s fine. Bro had 30 years of development experience so I guess he knows what good code looks like
Even then, it feels dishonest to hide when such a historically unreliable tool is being used.
It is unreliable if unsupervised of course. Microsoft and all those big corpos are vibecoding the whole thing, that is the reason why AI has gotten a bad reputation in the community despite it being objectively useful. Using AI to code ≠ Vibecoding
It is only hidden because too many non-programmers become hysterical whenever AI is mentioned.
In a rational world, it wouldn’t need to be hidden.
you can criticise them but ultimately they are a unpaid developer making their work freely available to the benefit of us all. at least don’t harass the developer.
I agree with you with the current state of things in the world is hard to keep up and easy to complain. I’d say instead of asking the guy to not use AI ask him what he needs for help. He’s clearly stating that he’s in burnout.
I don’t have the time or skills to help so I wouldn’t go complaining.They want to put clanker code that they freely admit they don’t validate into a product that goes on the computers of people who’s experience with Linux is “I heard it’s faster for games”
It’s irresponsible to hide it from review. It doesn’t matter if AI tools got better, AI tools still aren’t perfect and so you still have to do the legwork. Or at least let your community.
Also, you should let your community make ethics decisions about whether to support you.
Overall it was a rash reaction to being pressured rudely in a GitHub thread; but you know AI is a contentious topic and you went in anyway. It’s weak AF to then have a tantrum and spit in the community’s face about it.
Nothing is being hidden from review. The code is open source. They removed the specific attribution that indicates which parts of the code were created using Claude. That changes absolutely nothing about the ability to review the code, because a code review should not distinguish between human written code and machine written code; all of it should be checked thoroughly. In fact, I would argue that specifically designating code as machine written is detrimental to code review, because there will be a subconscious bias among many reviewers to only focus on reviewing the machine code.
In fact, I would argue that specifically designating code as machine written is detrimental to code review, because there will be a subconscious bias among many reviewers to only focus on reviewing the machine code.
Oh, it’s more than subconscious, as you can see in this thread.
Lutris developer makes a perfectly sane and nuianced response to a reactionary “is lutris slop now” comment, and gets shit on for it, because everybody has to fight in black and white terms. There are no grey opinions, only battle lines to be drawn to these people.
What? Are you all going to shit on your lord and savior Linus himself for also saying he uses LLMs? Oh, what, you didn’t know?!?
The response is only nuanced until the “good luck” sentence. If he swallowed that it would be an almost perfect response. But that sentence is a quite big “fuck you”.
A little personal flourish doesn’t invalidate the rest IMO. Humans get aggravated and humans are aggravating.
It’s not as much of a “fuck you” as much as “I’m tired of this same fucking response, when all I’m trying to do is get some work done, which I do for fucking free, by the way”.
They are on liberapay if you want to support the project btw. Combined with Patreon, they sit at less than 700$ a week. That’s like half a dev before tax
?
Yes, that’s Liberapay. You may have noticed that I mentioned Patreon.
You might as well donate to Anthropic.
You make a fair point, but I feel like the trolling reaction they gave was asking for more backlash. Not responding was probably the best move.
Trolling? They gave a pretty good answer explaining their reasoning.
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.
Seems pretty obvious to me that they knew this wouldn’t go over well. It was inflammatory by design.
Yeah ok. True. I think the rest of the post has much more weight, though. But yeah, he should have swallowed that last sentence.
It’s typical of dev burnout, though. Communication starts becoming more impulsive and less constructive, especially in the face of conflicts of opinions.
I’ve seen it play a few times already. A toxic community will take a dev who’s already struggling, troll them, screenshot their problematic responses, and use that in a campaign across relevant places such as github, reddit, lemmy… Maybe add a little light harassment on the side, as a treat. It’s a fun activity ! The dev spirals, posts increasingly unhinged responses and often quits as a result.
The fact that the thread is titled “is lutris slop now” is a clear indication that the intention of the poster wasn’t to contribute anything constructive but to attack the dev and put them on their back foot.
… You’re right. I definitely wouldn’t be above such a response.
The problem is, a lot of people here - myself included - were/are also being impulsive about their responses to this issue, at least partially due to all the shitty stuff caused by GenAI.
There might be some toxic people too, I wouldn’t be surprised - but this can happen without them, too.
The thing is, toxic people thrive in mob situations and are often found leading or even manufacturing them. I tend to be wary around this kind of setups as they are easy to get caught up in and hard to get out of.
I see your point. I might also have responded poorly to that, on some level at least.
Yeah same. I’d like to think i’d answer “I’ll use AI, if you don’t like it you can fork the project and i wish you good luck. Go share your opinion on AI in an appropriate place.”. But realistically there’s a high chance it catches me on a bad day and i get stupid.
Every extra person using all these AI tools is only adding to the issue.
No, literally the opposite. They are going to do this until it is not financially viable. The more frugal and conscientious people are with their AI, the longer it is financially viable. If you want to pop the bubble, go set up a bot to hammer their free systems with bogus prompts. Run up their bills until they can’t afford to be speculative any more.
Run up their bills until they can’t afford to be speculative any more.
Sadly I don’t think you’ve met venture capitalists… they will use your usage as a KPI for success. They have a runway longer than you can imagine, check the history of Amazon or Uber. They can be unprofitable for years, heck longer than a decade, and they are fine with it because they are claiming (and sadly sometimes right) to be cornering a trillion dollar market.
Honestly, unfortunately, I agree. It IS unfortunately helpful, and if you’re a competent developer using AI tooling, you can make sure it doesn’t generate slop. You are responsible for your code, at the end of the day.
AI does generate societal damage, but that’s mostly because of how companies abuse it and less because of the technology itself.
bro everything is being built with AI right now. ive been doing interviews and every single company I talk to is using these tools to the full extent possible for whatever it is that they’re doing. they have little reason not to
The guy really should have stayed chill about it instead of opening up a tirade, but what he’s saying is correct
Worth mentioning that the user that started the issue jumps around projects and creates inflammatory issues to the same effect. I’m not surprised lutris’ maintainer went off like they did, the issue is not made with good faith.
Yes, both threads are led by two accounts with probably less than 50 commits to their names during the last year, none of which are of any relevance to the subject they are discussing.
In a world where you could contribute your time to make some things better, there is a certain category of people who seek out nice things specifically to harm them. As open source enters mainstream culture, it also appears on the radar of this kind of people. It’s dangerous to catch their attention, as once they have you they’ll coordinate over reddit, lemmy, github, discord to ruin your reputation. The reputation of some guy who never ever did them any harm apart from bringing them something they needed, for free, but in a way that doesn’t 100% satisfy them. Pure vicious entitlement.
I’d sooner have a drink with a salesman from OpenAI than with one of them.
Just, what kind of pleasure can one derive from harming these projects? It’s so frigging weird, man.
Throwing down people is the easiest way to stand above them. 😒
