hperrinLutris dev says he's cool with AI generated bugs because his code is already full of bugs
That’s not what he said.
These people are ridiculous. This is an open source side project, if people don’t want “ai slop” in their app, then maybe they should fork the project and maintain it themselves.
They can’t fork it now because the fact that the AI commits aren’t labeled as such means there’s no way to tell which need to be removed.
They can’t fork it now because the fact that the AI commits aren’t labeled as such means there’s no way to tell which need to be removed.
So… they can’t do that because they can’t tell the difference between the human code and the AI’s code? So that means that either A. The human code is also slop or B. The AI’s code is on par with the human’s code. This comment really proves that this aversion to AI is purely ideological.
Based on the thread I originally linked, and the dev’s response, I think the answer is A.
But there was attribution, so you can easily check out commit before attribution was removed, use git blame on class attribution to see when it started, and fork before it.
What I’m saying is it’s probably not worth forking Lutris because it’s bad code. It would be better to just switch to a better alternative.
Like?
Heroic doesn’t work in all cases. I have to have both installed to use my library.
I’ve had many issues with other software and ended up having to use Lutris.
Lutris may have bad code, but functionally mature is generally what succeeds. Sexy code that doesn’t work exists on a handful of computers only.
There is a reason we are talking about it. Its the most popular Linux launcher. Wishing that wasn’t true doesn’t change the fact it is.