Originally posted by @strycore in #6506: 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...
Considering how often and how heated the topic comes up in lemmy (even though the actual discussion takes place at GitHub) this is some sort of bullying.
Instead of simply parting ways some are harassing the developers of a free software in order to gain exactly nothing.
I’m involved in that discussion because I like Lutris and don’t want the project to suffer because of the use of AI tools. The developer challenged people in that discussion (myself included) to find low quality code that had been pushed recently from the AI. I did. Two of his last four commits introduced bugs.
You ain’t a dev or a maintainer oof the project, so keep the discussion civil. Also stop trying to rally people for your “cause”. At this point, you are just bluntly trying to make someone miserable.
I have no intention of making him miserable. I don’t think he’s a bad person, unlike some other people in that discussion. In my opinion, he was uninformed about the dangers of AI generated code. He was also uninformed about the quality of AI generated code, thinking that it wasn’t introducing bugs. Now he’s informed, but he is still going to use the AI. I’m hoping that’s just because he’s being stubborn. But, that’s something that people should know, so they can choose whether or not to continue using Lutris.
I was and still am a fan of Lutris, but I have switched to Bottles. Bottles is still missing some features that Lutris has, but I just can’t trust Lutris’ code and devs anymore. It makes me really sad, because the project itself is really cool.
I honestly, genuinely hope that he will see what a bad idea the AI code is before the project reaches an unmaintainable state.
He very much was uninformed. Most devs don’t understand copyright law. He was no exception. He didn’t understand the legal implications of using the AI tools until they were explained to him in that discussion. He also didn’t believe that the AI generated code had bugs until they were pointed out to him. He called people “bullshitters” for saying it did.
It’s not condescending to describe someone as uninformed. Being uninformed isn’t a moral failing or shameful. We all start off uninformed. I had to read a shit ton of copyright and patent law when I was going through the patent process, because I too was uninformed. There is no shame in that.
What really matters is what you do once you become informed. He is now informed, and has stated he doesn’t mind the code in Lutris being non-copyrightable and therefore unlicensed. He has also stated that he doesn’t mind the bugs it produces. I hope these are just knee-jerk reactions and that he changes his mind.
Puh. I’m really glad, I met you. How would I otherwise know about stuff like being uninformed and what learning is.
I guess, you must be a charm to work with.
Being a long time dev and having myself a reluctant look at AI featured coding I got an understanding of where you’re coming from. Still it is just a tool and the quality of the contribution is determined by the developer as gatekeeper. If you are concerned about the quality, raise your question ones. If the other side has a different opinion, stop working him and especially: try not to rally people into supporting you or offload the discussion into a different platform to gather the mob.
Do something productive, got to the forest, scream at trees, or whatnot.
On the other hand, if the project is dear to your heart, ask from which commit you can start a fork, without risking aforementioned licensing problems: and then get going.
Working a dev that pulled of a free to use and open source application while according to him curing a depression, is just not it. You are not entitled to anything, and he is not obliged. Instead of working on the software he’s now confronted with a shitload of aggressive comments about how he is working on the software.
Finally he has chosen a tool and a procedure for his pet project and that is absolute within the bounds of his expertise. He’s developing the software since 2017 and knows his source and architecture best.
He’s made it clear that this discussion is invited, so I don’t feel like I’m overstepping by continuing to engage. If he states that I’m no longer invited to participate or the discussion is no longer welcome on his platform, then I’ll stop.
According to the US Copyright Office, the AI is not just a tool. So, with regard to copyright, the code it produces is not yours, and is not protected in any way by your license. As stated before, he is aware of this now and is fine with the new code in Lutris not being protected by the GPL.
I agree that I’m not entitled to any of his work (as long as he doesn’t violate any of my copyrights), and that he is not obliged to provide me with anything. (Although technically the license he chose to use does entitle me to his work, but whatever.) But that knife cuts both ways. He is not protected from me spreading the word about his use of AI generated code, and especially not protected from me finding bugs in his project written by the AI and telling people about those.
I’m not interested in starting a fork. First, I’m not a Python dev, and second, I already manage several large open source projects, and one closed source one.
There are also other projects that are alternatives to Lutris. As long as Lutris is being filled with AI code, I will recommend those alternatives, and try to get others to do the same.
Considering how often and how heated the topic comes up in lemmy (even though the actual discussion takes place at GitHub) this is some sort of bullying.
Instead of simply parting ways some are harassing the developers of a free software in order to gain exactly nothing.
I’m involved in that discussion because I like Lutris and don’t want the project to suffer because of the use of AI tools. The developer challenged people in that discussion (myself included) to find low quality code that had been pushed recently from the AI. I did. Two of his last four commits introduced bugs.
I know that you are involved.
You ain’t a dev or a maintainer oof the project, so keep the discussion civil. Also stop trying to rally people for your “cause”. At this point, you are just bluntly trying to make someone miserable.
There is nothing to gain for you.
I have no intention of making him miserable. I don’t think he’s a bad person, unlike some other people in that discussion. In my opinion, he was uninformed about the dangers of AI generated code. He was also uninformed about the quality of AI generated code, thinking that it wasn’t introducing bugs. Now he’s informed, but he is still going to use the AI. I’m hoping that’s just because he’s being stubborn. But, that’s something that people should know, so they can choose whether or not to continue using Lutris.
I was and still am a fan of Lutris, but I have switched to Bottles. Bottles is still missing some features that Lutris has, but I just can’t trust Lutris’ code and devs anymore. It makes me really sad, because the project itself is really cool.
I honestly, genuinely hope that he will see what a bad idea the AI code is before the project reaches an unmaintainable state.
Come on… how condescending are you? He is a well established developer. He is not uninformed.
He just made a decision that you don’t share. But the good part is: you don’t have to.
He very much was uninformed. Most devs don’t understand copyright law. He was no exception. He didn’t understand the legal implications of using the AI tools until they were explained to him in that discussion. He also didn’t believe that the AI generated code had bugs until they were pointed out to him. He called people “bullshitters” for saying it did.
It’s not condescending to describe someone as uninformed. Being uninformed isn’t a moral failing or shameful. We all start off uninformed. I had to read a shit ton of copyright and patent law when I was going through the patent process, because I too was uninformed. There is no shame in that.
What really matters is what you do once you become informed. He is now informed, and has stated he doesn’t mind the code in Lutris being non-copyrightable and therefore unlicensed. He has also stated that he doesn’t mind the bugs it produces. I hope these are just knee-jerk reactions and that he changes his mind.
Puh. I’m really glad, I met you. How would I otherwise know about stuff like being uninformed and what learning is. I guess, you must be a charm to work with.
Being a long time dev and having myself a reluctant look at AI featured coding I got an understanding of where you’re coming from. Still it is just a tool and the quality of the contribution is determined by the developer as gatekeeper. If you are concerned about the quality, raise your question ones. If the other side has a different opinion, stop working him and especially: try not to rally people into supporting you or offload the discussion into a different platform to gather the mob. Do something productive, got to the forest, scream at trees, or whatnot.
On the other hand, if the project is dear to your heart, ask from which commit you can start a fork, without risking aforementioned licensing problems: and then get going.
Working a dev that pulled of a free to use and open source application while according to him curing a depression, is just not it. You are not entitled to anything, and he is not obliged. Instead of working on the software he’s now confronted with a shitload of aggressive comments about how he is working on the software.
Finally he has chosen a tool and a procedure for his pet project and that is absolute within the bounds of his expertise. He’s developing the software since 2017 and knows his source and architecture best.
He’s made it clear that this discussion is invited, so I don’t feel like I’m overstepping by continuing to engage. If he states that I’m no longer invited to participate or the discussion is no longer welcome on his platform, then I’ll stop.
According to the US Copyright Office, the AI is not just a tool. So, with regard to copyright, the code it produces is not yours, and is not protected in any way by your license. As stated before, he is aware of this now and is fine with the new code in Lutris not being protected by the GPL.
I agree that I’m not entitled to any of his work (as long as he doesn’t violate any of my copyrights), and that he is not obliged to provide me with anything. (Although technically the license he chose to use does entitle me to his work, but whatever.) But that knife cuts both ways. He is not protected from me spreading the word about his use of AI generated code, and especially not protected from me finding bugs in his project written by the AI and telling people about those.
I’m not interested in starting a fork. First, I’m not a Python dev, and second, I already manage several large open source projects, and one closed source one.
There are also other projects that are alternatives to Lutris. As long as Lutris is being filled with AI code, I will recommend those alternatives, and try to get others to do the same.
Perfect.