Lutris maintainer use AI generated code for some time now. The maintainer also removed the co-authorship of Claude, so no one knows which code was generated by AI.

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.

sauce 1

sauce 2

  • yucandu@lemmy.world
    64·
    18 hours ago

    What I don’t get, is people’s inability to cope with their own limitations, or find their way out of problems without asking a magic box to do everything for them.

    I don’t know who those people are. I coded for 20 years before LLMs, and I coped just fine.

    The AI is teaching you nothing it’s just doing work for you.

    Unless you ask it to explain things to you. Which is often required to fix the things that the AI can’t get right on its own.

    if you use it that’s you’re business but it’s not your code

    How is it not my code?

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      132·
      18 hours ago

      An LLM cannot ever “explain” anything to anyone, because it doesn’t know anything. How are people still trusting anything these fucking things say?

      • Mniot@programming.devEnglish
        2·
        13 hours ago

        Right?? It’s bizarre to me that otherwise-smart-seeming people will think they can write “explain your reasoning” to the AI and it will explain its reasoning.

        Yes, it will write some fluent response that reads as an explanation of its reasoning. But you may not even be talking to the same model that wrote the original text when you get the “explanation”.

      • yucandu@lemmy.world
        32·
        13 hours ago

        Because it’s right more often than google? I swear you AI critics aren’t actually using AI.

        • ilovepiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          31·
          10 hours ago

          Agreed. Delusional mindsets stuck in 2023. I’ve never seen more entitled people before punching on FOSS devs and how they use their free time. “We need high quality, human coded FOSS programs with ZERO AI slop in them!” “Why no, I’ve never contributed to an open source project, nor do I know how to code, why do you ask?”

          Forks exist, get over it.

    • SparroHawc@lemmy.zip
      102·
      18 hours ago

      How is it not my code?

      In case you missed it, courts have ruled that works produced by AI cannot have copyright, because it was not made by a human.

      You can make use of AI-generated code, but you didn’t write it. Since you can’t copyright it, it’s not your code - it’s our code, comrade.

      • yucandu@lemmy.world
        52·
        13 hours ago

        In case you missed it, courts have ruled that works produced by AI cannot have copyright, because it was not made by a human.

        Courts have ruled that art that was 100% generated by AI cannot be copyrighted by the AI, because the AI is not a human person.

        The same courts have also ruled that works that were assisted by AI but created by a human can be copyrighted by that human.

        So, can you claim copyright in an AI-generated work in Canada? As of 2025, the safest answer is: only if a human author contributed substantial creative effort to the final work. There needs to be some human “skill and judgment” or creative spark for a work to be protected.

        If the AI was just a tool in your hands, for instance, you used AI to enhance or assemble content that you guided then your contributions are protected and you are the author of the overall work. But if an AI truly created the material with you providing little more than a prompt or idea, the law may treat that output as having no human author, and thus no copyright.

        Thankfully real life is far more nuanced than “fuck ai” allows.