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...
Thanks for the bug reports!! 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.
Now we’re dealing with edge cases. Like that whole extractor bug for AppImages. This was introduced during the development of the GameJolt service which can have a few different ways to package games.
The key here is to have a very solid and complete test plan and minor bugs like that will get caught.
This is absolutely not the “technical debt” and “bloat” and “vulnerable code” I’ve been hearing about. Those are bugs that aren’t nearly as bad as the ones we’ve been used to over the year. And they’ll manage to get fixed like every other bug.
The full comment, nowhere does it day he’s “fine” with AI generated bugs, only that the frequency of them is comparable with non-AI code.
“that’s a pretty good deal” is him saying he’s fine with those bugs.
He’s also heavily downplaying the severity of that bug. If a user hit that bug, it would keep copying that AppImage file over and over until it filled their disk and crashed the app. Then the user would have to figure out what happened and where all those duplicates were to fix their system, all while things were falling apart because nothing could write to the disk.
Many systems cannot successfully boot if the disk is full, so those users would probably have to reinstall their system if it crashed or they rebooted, and they didn’t know how to navigate a root shell. Even if the system didn’t crash, many apps won’t start if the disk is full, so the user is just going to have a really bad time overall.
Later in the thread, another user defended the severity of the bug by pointing to other bugs that Lutris has shipped which have damaged their users’ systems.
It’s also worth noting that I only reviewed four of his commits and found two bugs, one severe. So the frequency of these bugs seems much higher than without AI tools. Who knows how many others the AI has introduced, but I’m not going to review all of his slop if he can’t even be bothered to do it properly before he commits it.
The full comment, nowhere does it day he’s “fine” with AI generated bugs, only that the frequency of them is comparable with non-AI code.
(Not that I support his actions, ofc)
“that’s a pretty good deal” is him saying he’s fine with those bugs.
He’s also heavily downplaying the severity of that bug. If a user hit that bug, it would keep copying that AppImage file over and over until it filled their disk and crashed the app. Then the user would have to figure out what happened and where all those duplicates were to fix their system, all while things were falling apart because nothing could write to the disk.
Many systems cannot successfully boot if the disk is full, so those users would probably have to reinstall their system if it crashed or they rebooted, and they didn’t know how to navigate a root shell. Even if the system didn’t crash, many apps won’t start if the disk is full, so the user is just going to have a really bad time overall.
Later in the thread, another user defended the severity of the bug by pointing to other bugs that Lutris has shipped which have damaged their users’ systems.
It’s also worth noting that I only reviewed four of his commits and found two bugs, one severe. So the frequency of these bugs seems much higher than without AI tools. Who knows how many others the AI has introduced, but I’m not going to review all of his slop if he can’t even be bothered to do it properly before he commits it.