hperrinLutris dev says he's cool with AI generated bugs because his code is already full of bugs
That’s not what he said.
It’s paraphrasing, but that’s pretty much what he said:
Quite honestly, if that’s the level of bugs we’re dealing with due to our use of AI tools, that’s a pretty good deal. I’ve seen much worse, so much worse in code that we actually shipped in releases. And no AI was used to create those critical bugs.
Libel requires the statement to be false.
Indeed. And your statement that you now describe as “paraphrasing” was false.
In what way is what I said false? His statement describes the bugs as a “pretty good deal” because he’s seen “so much worse” in his code without the inclusion of AI. Therefore, he’s cool with AI generated bugs because his code is already full of bugs.
In what way is what I said false?
Do you think he’s not cool with AI generated bugs in Lutris? Do you think the code isn’t full of bugs? Do you think the reason he’s cool with AI generated bugs isn’t because his code is already full of bugs?
It certainly seems like all of those elements are in what he said. He knows that the AI is introducing bugs (I pointed out two bugs that it introduced in that thread), and he’s fine with it (he said it’s a pretty good deal), because the code base was already buggy before (he’s seen so much worse in code he’s shipped in the project).
He kept challenging everyone in that thread to find below average code pushed recently. I took him up on it, and looked through his last four commits (all attributed to Claude) and found two bugs. He is totally fine with that. If it were me, I would really rethink using a tool that introduces bugs in half of its commits.