Mastodawn

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

Lutris now being built with Claude AI, developer decides to hide it after backlash - Pawb.Social

> 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.

Show thread

Crozekiel Mar 13

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?

Show thread

thedeadwalking4242 Mar 13

I’m honestly sure the failure rate is higher then 25% those test they boat about are currated.

Show thread

FauxLiving

A rational person would question why they have beliefs that, when confronted with evidence against those beliefs they believe the evidence is wrong and not their beliefs.

It could indicate that the person’s beliefs are not built on rational grounds.

Show thread

thedeadwalking4242 Mar 14

Because in my personal experience through use 25% doesn’t seem quite right.

Besides these companies have a monetary incentive to ensure LLMs show high numbers on these tests. One of the most widely use tests (bench verified) is itself a currated selection of problems. In real world usage the failure rate is going to be much higher.

A rational person trust but verifies, and at least for me the verification doesn’t hold up to even a tiny bit of scrutiny so having doubts is a perfectly healthy thing to do.

Just because someone disagrees with with a data source does not make them irrational. There are some extremely well verified truths that are irrational to dismiss but not all data sources / studies have had that amount of rigor applied against them. Data can tell a story, but it doesn’t always tell the whole truth. People manipulate data to their own benifit.

People confuse the scientific method and academic research for “this one academic source says this it must be true” when really you need more then that.