Comment

Comment on Lutris now being built with Claude AI, developer decides to hide it after backlash

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…

source

Sort:hotnew top

Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
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”.

source
- pheelicks@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
  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?
  
  source
  - Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨minute⁩ ago
    The difference is that AI is a known issue creator (that huntarrr app comes to mind) with many projects and AI usage is supposed to be disclosed transparently for compliance with copyrights and licensing.
    
    But even despite all that its kind of a shitty way to go about it the way he did, in my opinion.
    
    source
Bongles@lemmy.zip ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
In my opinion, he should’ve left it as a co author. I think if you as a user have an ethical issue with Claude, that’s your choice and you can make the decision not to use lutris. I mostly agree with what he says until that part about removing Claude so “good luck finding it”.

It’s not about finding a difference for people (usually), it’s about how that model was trained on the work of others, without consent, for free, to then sell. He made his points about how much it helps, that it’s better than using Meta, Google, OpenAI, or Copilot and I think that’s probably true. But he made that case, so why then hide what Claude has done?

In gaming, Valve requires you to list if you have used AI in the creation of your game and you describe in what way. It’s not because the game will 100% of the time be absolute slop (right now it usually is), it’s so that the potential customer can be informed and choose to or not to support the use of AI in those products.

As far as I’m reading, most people who reviewed the actual code think it’s fine. So, again, I don’t see the point in hiding it other than being somewhat petty.

source
- pheelicks@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
  Right, fair point with the training data.
  
  source
Senal@programming.dev ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Think of it like a jeweller suddenly announcing they were going to start mixing in blood diamonds with their usual diamonds “good luck finding them”.

Functionally, blood diamonds aren’t different.

Leaving aside that you might not want blood diamonds, are you really going to trust someone who essentially says “Fuck you, i’m going to hide them because you’re complaining”

If you don’t know what blood diamonds are, it’s easily searchable.

I’ll go on record as saying the aesthetic diamond industry is inflationist monopolist bullshit, but that doesn’t alter the analogy

Secondly, it seems you don’t really understand why LLM generated code can be problematic, i’m not going to go in to it fully here but here’s a relevant outline.

LLM generated code can (and usually does) look fine, but still not do what it’s supposed to do.

This becomes more of an issue the larger the codebase.

The amount of effort needed to find this reasonable looking, but flawed, code is significantly higher than just reading a new dev’s version.

Hiding where this code is make it **even harder ** to find.

Hiding the parts where you really should want additional scrutiny is stupid and self-defeating.

source
- pheelicks@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
  Thanks, I think your first point is a really valid one. AI technology is far from clean, especially in a political scope.
  
  To your second point. I see that, but on the other hand, it makes an impression on me as if human code would be free of such errors. I would not put human code on an (implied) pedestal (especially not mine), but maybe I’m missing your point. I think being suspicious about AI code is good but same goes for human code. To me it sounds like nobody should ever trust AI code because there can or will be mistakes you can’t see, which is reasonably careful at best and paranoid at worst. At some point there is no difference anymore between “it looks fine” and “it is fine”.
  
  source