Lutris maintainer: "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."
3mon 8d ago by thelemmy.club/u/bdonvr in linux_gaming from github.com
Continued discussion: https://github.com/lutris/lutris/discussions/6530
Whether or not I use Claude is not going to change society
This gives me shopping cart theory vibes. I don't usually base my moral compass based on whether my action will have some kind of measurable impact, but whether I believe it's the right thing to do. After the intense doubling down in that discussion thread I'm definitely steering clear of lutris. It costs me very little effort to avoid projects that do icky things I don't want to encourage (even though it may not have a measurable impact~)
I can't fix the problem, therefore I'll be part of the problem.
At my job we have been told how we have to start using AI more. I can't really see any point. The only tasks AI can help me for are pointless tasks from HR that shouldn't exist in the first place. Monthly forms with questions like "how are you feeling emotionally", used to take me ages to come up with corpo bullshit friendly answers but locally hosted deepseek does it in seconds.
When my work enabled Gemini, I asked it how to disable it. It said it couldn't help me and asked if I had another question. I didn't.
That's the only interaction I've willingly had with it.
The HR department will see that it's not quality human HR-slop and the thought police will be with you shortly
Oh LLMs are great at writing HR slop
But then there's no suffering
In my experience, AI models are fairly good at contextual search. That's the only thing I use them for.
Yes, if we had documentation then I suspect AI tools could be good for finding information in that.
Lutris has always been a bit hit-or-miss for me, I avoided it unless it was the only option, as it only worked half the time. I don't want it to come off like it shouldn't exist, as stuff making Linux easier to use is great, but I don't use it at all in my current workflows.
I guess I've just been behind the times, but I've never had an incentive to switch. I just installed faugus and transferred everything over and it seems very slick. It seems to be missing 1 or 2 things, like environment variables per-game, but all the other important stuff seems to be here. I know what I'm doing with prefixes so having all the knobs to turn is great, but honestly linux gaming does not need most of those knobs nowadays.
How does transferring work?
I only have 2 or 3 things in lutris.
I just did it manually, pointing faugus at the old prefixes and setting the launch options the same
Sick. Thanks. I'll do the same.
Also, it is one thing to decide that something is not an ethical issue of concern, it is another thing to act with disrespect to everyone with a different opinion.
it is another thing to act with disrespect to everyone with a different opinion.
Unless that opinion is 'I like using AI', then they deserved the disrespect.
virtue ethics > utilitarianism
Utilitarianism really falls at the first hurdle of any kind of evaluation of a moral system.
It has no real prescriptive power because it demands you be able to correctly foresee the outcome of your actions, something literally addressed by "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", an adage of at least 400 years ago, and yet people will still gravitate towards it as if society did not explicitly caution us about that mindset forever now.
At this point I can't help but look down on those who genuinely identify as utilitarian as either too young, too stupid, or actively malevolent and trying to find a way to justify their bad behaviours as errors rather than malice or negligence.
I'd offer you a counterpoint (ignoring the issue with Lutris and AI for a minute):
If you choose not to judge your own actions by the expected consequences of those actions for everyone involved, then how exactly are you supposed to judge them? If you're following some rule that disagrees with the utilitarian view, then by definition it's a rule that in your own opinion leads to a worse outcome for everyone.
It's of course completely fine to not be utilitarian, but trying to claim that all utilitarians are either stupid or evil is just incorrect.
ignoring the issue with Lutris and AI for a minute
Please by all means, I ignored it in the first place, I find this way more interesting.
If you choose not to judge your own actions by the expected consequences of those actions for everyone involved, then how exactly are you supposed to judge them?
Well, this is only half the problem. It's a bad system because it demands the impossible of you (i.e. accurately predict the future) but it also has a really narrow interest in the dimensions of human morality.
To directly answer the question however: you judge them by a set of principles, whichever you deem right, that you apply consistently across choices.
When it comes to inter-personal choices, the vast majority of all questions can easily be answered by asking yourself "am i betraying some explicit or implicit bond of trust with someone (who has not done so themselves) by doing/saying this?" and if you are, you just stop.
And to be clear, I don't claim to follow this principle 100% of the time, I am not a saint, but that to me is the guiding principle when there are stakes to my behaviour, and it has not failed me yet.
If you’re following some rule that disagrees with the utilitarian view, then by definition it’s a rule that in your own opinion leads to a worse outcome for everyone.
(Emphasis added)
At its core, the idea of utilitarian morality is to "maximise utility", that is to do whatever does the most "good" to the highest number of people.
This is, IMO, a terrible metric, and as a deontologist I am perfectly happy reaching a "worse" outcome by it.
It is not particularly hard to see how, by applying this metric, you can justify any kind of scapegoating, abuse, and/or undue leniency on people that would deserve harsh punishment in any deontological or virtue based system, as soon as enough "good" is produced through it.
There is a very dark, but apt, joke about this kind of approach to morality: that 9/10 people involved in it endorse gang rape.
To me, morality is a qualitative assessment, not a quantitative one.
It does not matter how many perpetrator lives will be ruined if they have earned their punishment, and it does not matter how much happier they would be to get away with the crime than the victim would suffer, comparatively.
To do anything else would be to relinquish morality to the whims of the masses, because it implies that there is a threshold past which the abuse of the few becomes negligible due to the benefits it brings to the many.
trying to claim that all utilitarians are either stupid or evil is just incorrect.
To be fair I also stated they can be naïve; I was one too in my youth, until I learned and understood better.
I'm now assuming it all is and deleting Lutris.
What a moron.
Oh yeah. Here's another nugget:
Sometimes, I generate some code with Claude and commit by hand
Sometimes, I write code manually and ask Claude to commit
Sometimes, I ask OpenClaw to generate some code, which doesn't put the Co-Authorship
Sometimes, the whole thing is AI generated from end to end
This is also a somewhat recent addition to Claude Code. I was kinda surprised when I first noticed it but didn't think much of it, I was like "meh, I guess we're doing that now, whatever, some people might take issue with it, whatever". Also, do keep in mind that I love trolling people coming in my projects to complain about my methods.
For those who are anti-AI, it's a safe assumption that any addition to the project has had some kind of AI interaction during the development process.
https://github.com/lutris/lutris/discussions/6530#discussioncomment-16088355
Sometimes, I ask OpenClaw to...
This person should not be trusted with anything.
That is the real shame in all this. I'm certainly not updating lutris any more, because there is no way of knowing what you will install on your system.
You can trust humans (as in "trusting is an option"). You can never trust an LLM. And admitting that there might be unsupervised commits, being installed on possibly thousands of PCs is terrifying.
Glad I use Heroic instead. Time to check what their AI policy is.
Based on some PRs, they're using github copilot to help with reviews but are generally against vibe coding
💯 this. I don’t mind using an LLM for certain tasks. We all do at the end of the day. However, OpenClaw is a different topic. This is just dangerous.
So Trumps gonna give him the nuclear launch codes any minute now is what you are saying?
Now I'm really worried this software can wipe out my home directory
They are free to do what they want to on their repo.
We are free to fork if need arises.
Personally I don't like projects not showing what AI has made. And most of Claude was made on stolen code. Its against the open source license they themselves use https://github.com/lutris/lutris/blob/master/LICENSE
But almost no one actually enforces the license until the big companies show up. I hope they change their minds, but until then, im going to stop using/contributing for a while.
Does anyone know which was the last version before the dev started shoveling slop in to the repo? The utter dipshit invalidated even the ability to license after that point, those releases are wholly worthless.
in 5 years from now there’s going to be totally coevolved but unique seed-lines for software. the once with AI, and the once without. how can you distinguish them? did the human that said it wrote them really write them? these problems aside, i suspect it will be forced to happen just from a security viewpoint, big companies won’t be able to get any kind of insurance anymore running AI-infested code.
That last bit needs to hit sooner.
It's like non-radioactive steel that has to be recovered from sunken warships
Fork it and call it Ludique, meaning fun in French.
We are free to fork if need arises.
...and how do you ensure your fork does not contain a single commit involving even a single line written by Claude? If you can't, then isn't your fork slop by default?
And most of Claude was made on stolen code.
Sure, it learned to code by reading lots of code, most of it just publicly available online for anyone to read and for anyone to learn from but not explicitly licensed for a machine to read it and learn from it. I doubt it's possible to teach an ML system (or for that matter a human being) how to code without reading lots of example code. And any code you've ever read has an impact on any code you write afterward (same as any other creative endeavor), that's why clean room design as a defense against copyright infringement is a thing that exists.
it's more nuanced than that. Claude is made from stolen code, but it generally isn't going to copy its training data verbatim (unless specifically told to). so copyright wise it's more grey than strictly wrong. and though claude is made from stolen code, lutris developers are writing something they give off freely to the world, they are not profiting from the stolen code.
does this make it ok? i don't know. what if they use an open weights model rather than a closed one? would that be more acceptable?
No, open weights changes nothing. Using stolen material is. Especially for a GPL project, a licence normally used to scare off corporate vultures. Why should anyone respect lutris' licence, when they gave up on the authorship of their own product?
"This works perfectly, which is why I'm removing all ways to audit what it has contributed."
"because that's the only way to use it without being harassed online"
I disagree with his reasons for removing it, but they are pretty clear.
The downvotes are only making your argument for you, lol
Downvotes are pretty much death threats, amirite?
My Lemmy karma :(
Larma.
You're either new to social media or being deliberately dense if you don't understand the correlation between unpopular opinions, downvotes and harassment.
You can harass someone in many ways, not simply by threatening to kill them.
Been chewing this since yesterday. Okay, here is my two cents:
- yes, what LLM companies are doing is a problem. So dropping anything that has anything to do with their products is a sane way to make a statement
- yes, LLMs can be used effectively in development. Whether Lutris author has been using them well - I don't know. Guess won't bother to check either, have other things to do
- yes, doing the stunt with "good luck guessing what is what" is bullshit
Net total, given I've already dropped GNOME because of their culture: guess now I am dropping Lutris. Not because of AI per se, but because of "fuck you" move
Net total, given I’ve already dropped GNOME because of their culture
what was wrong with gnome's culture?
I use KDE BTW, I don't want a fischer price/mac lookalike ui
- You want customisation? Use extensions
- We broke extensions, because
- Also, no API for extensions. Patch our code manually
No integrity in that see I, so drop them I do (Yoda voice)
Also refusing to make literally any compromise on cross-desktop protocols that everyone else wants, stalling progress for years
Gnome: Pissing off its userbase since 2011
Last point is enough for me to drop them for good
What's the replacement for lutris?
I've already replaced lutris with Heroic launcher + proton and wine-ge a year ago.
Lutris install script already didn't work >50% of the time for me and battle.net always completely corrupts and messes up after a time on lutris and I have to reinstall it every few months, but has been going a year strong on heroic.
You can also always look at the lutris install scripts and install those components in heroic via winetricks. They were made by the community anyway.
For games. I have replaced it with steam as you can load none steam games and run them under proton. I have had great success. Outside of games I'm not sure.
I’m pretty sure neither is pure? I mean, you don’t have to necessarily limit steam to games. May as well try non games and see what happens.
Build one yourself
Didn't look for one yet. As I understand, there is a thing called bottles that is worth a try
but because of “fuck you” move
The guy removed the attribution because he is being harassed.
The 'fuck you' move is the people harassing an open source dev. Those people are the source of the bad behavior, not the guy who volunteers his time maintaining an open source project for everyone to use.
The anti-AI crowd is toxic and need to fuck off. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another thing to harass volunteers because they're using tools that the crowd has a hateboner for.
The guy removed the attribution because he is being harassed
That may be, and he never mentions this in the now famous comment. Or was the message about Lutris being slop a harrasment? (question is genuine, I am somewhere in autistic spectrum)
The ‘fuck you’ move is the people harassing an open source dev
That is not a decent behaviour, no questions. His doing something preemptively in regards to something that he says he doesn't see as an issue - that's some bullshit. I am not against him using llm tools, but I am not ok with someone who can't just say "this is how I am doing things, these are my reasons and they are enough for me, so fuck off (and/or be banned, if GitHub has such a thing)" and instead goes on with some ill-reasoned tyrade. Before anyone brings this up: yes, he also mentions depression, which is no small thing, so demanding crystal-cut reasoning is also bullshit, but that is not my point, the latter being that the guy needs some care, and doesn't look like he understands that. Which means things are heading towards a disaster, sadly
That may be, and he never mentions this in the now famous comment. Or was the message about Lutris being slop a harrasment? (question is genuine, I am somewhere in autistic spectrum)
There was a lot of toxic conversations in Discord and on the forums for a while prior to his blowing up.
The dev hasn't made a secret of his mental health struggles and he probably could have handled the situation a bit better. But, in the end, he's a guy making a tool that helps the entire community and even if you think AI tools run on the blood of sacrificed puppies, it isn't okay to harass someone personally.
Argue about water usage or power usage, copyright issues, etc... but as soon as they start attacking the person directly it has gone way too far. His response could have been better, but the blame should be completely on the anti-ai harassment squad and not the lack of PR skills of a volunteer developer.
Blame for different things:
Running around and cursing anyone using llm - that's an idiotic thing to do, and he is not the one doing it, of course
not the lack of PR skills of a volunteer developer
That's not what bothers me
But, in the end, he’s a guy making a tool that helps the entire community
While sacrificing his own life (time, energy, emotions, all it takes to keep doing it). That's not worth it, damn it. Doing something just to say "good luck figuring this out on your own, if it bothers you that much, you stupid fucks" is a priority shift from "what is good for me/project/community" to "what to do with project to stop this toxic shit". My answer is "Do nothing with the project. Get them to fuck off or get yourself out of their reach". And my requirement of anyone in charge of anything is clarity
Edit: word "sacrificing" is important. Not sharing out of abundance, not serving out of devotion, but cutting from what he has and needs for the benefit of others
Oh I agree he's handled it badly, I just don't fault him much.
He's just one guy who's suddenly the target of tens or hundreds of people who're directly harassing him everywhere that it is possible. He shouldn't be put in that position and, as bad as his response is, he's doing it in the context of a pressure and harassment campaign... not because he's suddenly developed animosity for the community.
His response is bad, but the people creating the situation are the ones that shoulder the blame... imo.
On that we agree completely. Screaming "N is bad because llm was used to build it" is utter idiocy
Here’s my issue with this specifically. It makes Lutris very vulnerable to being considered entirely public domain:
"AI" has been known to present code from other projects and hence other licenses. It can't become public domain unless all of that code was also public domain.
I'd imagine there have been more nonsensical (than AI = public domain) legal decisions that have had the full force of law for decades.
I recently dug around for a while, and if the copyright of works in the training data affects the copyright of outputs, no popular model can output anything that would even be close to acceptable for a contribution to an open-source project. Maybe if you trained a model exclusively on "The Stack" (NOT "The Pile") and then included all the required attributions -- but no ready-made model does that. All of the "open source" model frameworks that I could find included some amount of proprietary "pre-training" data that would also be an issue.
If AI output is NOT affected by the copyright of training data... there might not BE a (legal) person that can hold any copyrights over it, which is pretty close to public domain.
Good Sire, if we are talking about only the US, then that does not matter at all. Existing copyright law and established precedents (without involving AI) already covers this. The copyright of software is handled like that of literature, so the actual content is copyrighted. More specifically the sequence of words. In order to violate the copyright of a protected work, one just has to reproduce this sequence. It is not relevant, if it was reproduced by an AI, a human, God or your cat (:D). The only exclusion to this is fair use. Whether fair use applies must be considered by a case by case basis. There are four factors that are used in deciding whether it falls under fair use. And that is considering that portions of that code are not patented. If they are, then you are screwed no matter what (unless you are allowed to use that code).
Anyhow, you are opening yourself up for litigations for sure.
Now, is this a problem? Probably not. Copyright infringement is actually very very hard to spot, especially without automated tools (looking right at you, YouTube). Even if it is spotted, the owners of the copyright must use resources in order to enforce it. Considering that most of the code used in the training data is open-source, most of these owners won't have these resources or at least aren't using them (which is sad, because that also applies to the infringement of companies as well). You cannot lose, if no one sues. Whether you should risk it, is anyone's decision to make.
For unprotected code.. I guess, you are right. It could be one way or the other, but it does not really matter that much. At worst, people can use your code without adhering to your license. That would not mark the end of an project, the former definitely would.
Also on another note: Using copyrighted material in the training data of AI is considered fair use.
There is no settled legal status on the output of AI systems and it's certainly something that does need clarification going forward. The law may treat asking an LLM to regurgitate it's training data vs following instructions in a local context differently. Human engineers are allowed to use "retained knowledge" from their experiences even if they can't bring their notebooks from previous careers. LLMs are just better at it.
As of March 2, it has been settled. AI generated works must have substantial human creative input in order to be copyrightable. Prompting the AI does not meet that requirement.
In other words, if the AI wrote the code, and you didn’t change it since then, it’s not yours at all. It’s public domain, no question.
Prompting the AI alone does not meet that requirement. IE you can't say "draw me a picture of a cat" and then copyright the picture of the cat claiming you made it.
You can say "help me draw this left ear over here, now make the right ear up here, a little taller, darken the edges a bit", all with prompts, but with your sufficient creative input.
That’s not how the dev said he’s generating code. He said sometimes he does it without any intervention at all.
Also, that’s potentially copyrightable. That hasn’t been settled.
US defaultism strikes again
I said, in the issue, I was talking about the US.
Glad it applies worldwide /s
Slop can't be copyrighted, great. We don't want slop.
Your link doesn't support what you're saying in the slightest. Have whatever opinion you want, but don't shovel up transparent bullshit to push your narrative.
TFA is about a a copyright on a work made by a purely autonomous device, and SCOTUS declining to hear a case doesn't "settle" jack-shit.
Quoting further:
Thaler submitted an application to the US Copyright Office to register copyright in “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” explicitly identifying the AI system as the author and stating the work was created without human intervention.
For now, businesses and creators using AI should continue to rely on the longstanding human authorship requirement. Under current law, works made solely by autonomous AI are not eligible for copyright protection in the United States. Ongoing cases also consider the amount of human input, including prompting or post-generation editing, required to register copyright in an AI-generated work.[12]
Companies should ensure a human contributes creatively and is named as the author in any copyright applications for AI-assisted works. To maximize protection, organizations should review their creative workflows and document human involvement in AI-assisted projects, particularly for commercial content. Organizations should continue to document the timing and scope of the use of AI in copyrightable works, for example by retaining prompts provided by the author. Internal policies should clarify attribution, ownership, the nature of creative input, and documentation requirements to avoid denied copyright applications.
Iteratively working on a codebase by guiding an LLM's design choices and feeding it bug reports is fundamentally different from this case you're citing.
If all you do is prompt the AI, “hey, fix bugs in this repo,” then you had no creative input into what it produces. So that kind of code would not be copyrightable, 100%. You can fight it in court, but the Supreme Court refusing to hear it means the lower court’s decision is settled law, and your chances of winning are essentially zero.
Whether code where you hold its hand and basically pair program with it is copyrightable hasn’t been settled. Considering the dev said he does it both ways, the point is rather moot, since for sure, he doesn’t own the copyright to at least some of that AI generated code.
OpenClaw is an autonomous system just like the one in that article, and the dev said that’s what he’s using at least some of the time. It generates and commits code without human intervention.
- their repo (checked the commit graphs and basically they did most of the work, 2nd dev agree with them, covers 90%+) their choice of governance
- their repo, their choice of tooling
- I genuinely believe they think are doing "good enough" code and they are probably right about it in their context
- they do have fair points on the economical power dynamics, namely that yes Anthropic is slightly less worst than Meta, Google, OpenAI, Microsoft, etc (... but IMHO honestly that's a damn low bar)
but also
- obfuscation rather than discussion (closed the issue and limited to maintainers only) so clearly the signal is precisely "my repo, my choice"
- no mention of the copyright or license washing
- no mention of ecological impact
so I would personally consider instead Bottles, GOG (have different problems), Steam (obviously not open source and basically monopolistic position), etc.
Overall I think preventing discussion is unhealthy (even though sadly sometimes needed, here I lack context, maybe the issue poster did this numerous time on other platforms, title definitely was provocative) but removing provenance is NEVER a good choice. They want to use Claude on their repo? Absolutely fine (even though not to me) but hiding it makes it instantly untrustworthy to me. In fact I even argued in the past that even though I personally do not use GenAI/LLMs (for coding or otherwise) except for testing it should always be disclosed precisely so that others can make THEIR choice in consequence, including using or contributing, cf https://fabien.benetou.fr/Analysis/AgainstPoorArtificialIntelligencePractices
GOG (have different problems)
but GOG is not open source too (if you use GOG Galaxy)
Yes, that's part of the problems, thanks for clarifying
Yw
Tbh, I think it's a bit of pick your battles. GOG and Steam are mostly good companies, but it's all closed source and I would bet money they are using AI to develop too. And they don't even provide any way that you could check that, because their code isn't open at all.
Is that really better than some open source dev developing with AI in broad daylight?
I totally understand why the Lutris dev shut down the discussion. The dev posted about struggling with mental health, and developing open source software is sadly really bad for your mental health. There's just too many people who think that the code is public and thus they get a say in it, even if they didn't contribute anything at all.
As an open source dev, you contribute without getting anything in return, and then you have to justify your actions in front of random strangers who often get quite aggressive. It's a really big problem in the FOSS sector. Look up e.g. the controversy around Marcel Bokhorst (M66B). He almost shut down all his great FOSS projects because of all the hassle he got from randos on the internet.
I agree. I still don't think it's right. I'm not sure how to do better. Overall, developing (in open source or not) or creating art or whatever one is into my once advice is to cherry pick whatever strangers are telling you. You only listen to the healthy advice and everything else must be like water off a duck's back.
In commercial development that's easy. I don't really care about the product I am working on. I am doing a good job working on it, but it's not my baby. Also, I am a developer, so I develop. There's customer support people who get paid to have customers scream at them.
If this is your personal pet project, that you love and that you poured your soul in, that's more difficult. Especially if you are already struggling with mental health.
And I don't like it when we say "only mentally stable people who don't mind engaging with a toxic community deserve to be FOSS developers". That's just not right.
I don’t like it when we say “only mentally stable people who don’t mind engaging with a toxic community deserve to be FOSS developers”. That’s just not right.
No idea where that came from, I surely didn't mean nor suggest so.
Overall, developing (in open source or not) or creating art or whatever one is into my once advice is to cherry pick whatever strangers are telling you. You only listen to the healthy advice and everything else must be like water off a duck's back.
This part here.
Only taking healthy advice and ignoring everything else is something you can do if you are super mentally stable. If you aren't this is often not possible.
That's precisely not engaging though.
obfuscation rather than discussion (closed the issue and limited to maintainers only) so clearly the signal is precisely “my repo, my choice”
There is discussion but it is limited to the people who contribute to the project, it is closed to the public because of the harassment campaign. Nobody wants to listen to a bunch of toxic children copy and paste the same opinions and insults.
no mention of the copyright or license washing no mention of ecological impact
The developers who use AI tools are not repeating the anti-AI memes, this isn't surprising.
It's one thing if you want to not use the software, but contributing to or whitewashing this harassment campaign is toxic and needs to stop.
I'm kind of torn on this, because on the one side I can see the developer's troubles. If they have 30 years of experience and they considered the impact of using it they will most likely know how to use it properly and ethically. Indeed many of the issues people have with AI are a kind of redirected anger, when really they are issues with capitalism, incompetency, or digital illiteracy. And the person posting the issue seems purely there to fan that flame rather than actually contribute. Something maintainers could use just as little as slop authored PRs.
But on the other hand, being open about the usage is a must. It's the price to pay for going against the grain. If your ideals and means are pure, they should be defendable and scrutinizable to reasonable people, and there should be no issue with that in the long term. Hiding the usage will create doubt about authorship, and make defenses harder to point at, while it won't stop the horde.
Yeah what rubs me wrong is that they went out of their way to hide it and are proud of it
they will most likely know how to use it properly and ethically
I'd argue that ethical use is not possible:
- Models are trained on stolen/misappropriated/misused data
- Training involves psychologically harmful work from ghost workers
- Those services runs on infrastructure that no one wants around, and wastefully contributes to climate change/global warming
It's at times like this I like to point out examples like surgeons Ben Carr(?) and Dr. Oz as counter examples that you can be very knowledgeable about something but also very unwise or morally bankrupt it simultaneously.
Per the dev:
"I don't refuse to document anything, I'm just taking full ownership of all commits. Claude is not a person (sorry to all the people named Claude) and I don't see the point of having it in commit messages. It has a "Sent from my iphone" vibe. It's just advertising."
She also said something to the effect of "if you think the AI code I allow through is noticeably worse than my hand written code, you should be able to tell it apart without me labeling it. I'm tired of your bitching about it because of a tag rather than the actual content"
How to drive off users and contributors in one easy step!
Is Step 1 - Be the target of a harassment campaign?
He removed the attribution because people are harassing him, it's one thing to not want to use the tool but harassing an open source dev is way over the line. I don't care about your opinion on AI, it doesn't justify harassment.
The anti-AI crowd have, once again, gone way over the line. Nobody should be supporting this harassment.
Oh great the campaign of harassment is continuing. Keep going guys, hopefully you can get another dev to quit a project, and I know none of the people commenting here have what it takes to fork and maintain it.
You wouldn't be doing anything different if you were getting paid by corporate interests to hurt the open source movement. Great job you can be proud of yourselves.
Edit: To preface this, I concede that targeted harassment against individuals isn't a good solution to the problems I have with the way the technology is being used.
Others mention that some recent versions appear to have been unusable. If this is due to LLM-generated code and the dev doubles down on using it, I'm not sure there's too much value in them carrying on development and burying more artificially generated foot guns in there than human coding tends to have already.
That aside, the climate, economic and social problems of the GenAI boom are hardly unknown. For the dev to ignore that is... distasteful. If they won't quit using LLMs without also quitting the project, Lutris might end up another regrettable victim of the AI-Slopalypse.
Opposing GenAI isn't trying to hurt the Open Source movement, it's trying to call out the false messiah that has deluded some people into believing it's the future of software development.
Never had an issue with Lutris. Using AI doesn't necessarily mean vibecoding
Opposing GenAI is free. Do it. It just consists of not using the software you don't agree with. It's great I do it all the time.
Coordinating attacks on social media to harass a developer is not great. It's 4chan-like but at least the 4chan goblins know that they are the bad guys. This is just as slimy but with none of the self awareness.
Opposing GenAI is free. Do it. It just consists of not using the software you don't agree with.
That doesn't mitigate the environmental damage caused by others using it. I'm not opposed to the technology, nor strictly to its application, but to the irresponsible wau it's being handled currently.
Coordinating attacks on social media to harass a developer is not great
You're right, I agree on that. Efforts should target the companies that offer it, rather than individuals.
It's 4chan-like but at least the 4chan goblins know that they are the bad guys. This is just as slimy but with none of the self awareness.
I'm not sure the 4chan goblins actually believe they are bad guys so much as ironically embrace that image
That doesn’t mitigate the environmental damage caused by others using it. I’m not opposed to the technology, nor strictly to its application, but to the irresponsible wau it’s being handled currently.
Well i guess that's a great reason to harass individuals who never wished harm on anybody then 🤷
Read the rest of the comment. It's not.
Yeah i get it. It's just that the whole situation pisses me off to no end. There are exponentially more people destructively contributing to this campaign, than people constructively contributing code to projects. Cause it's easy and lazy and takes literally zero effort.
The only effect is to punish developers for having successful projects. They'd be fine if they were just dicking around on toy projects, but they chose to do something that matters, and to do it for free, and now they have haters. A lot more haters than helpers too !
We are collectively sending the message that it's better not to stick your head out and publish open source code, and this will wreak havoc on the already overtaxed FOSS ecosystem. Corporate tech must be rubbing its hand in glee now that we're doing what they never achieved in 30 years.
that it's better not to stick your head out and publish open source code
I like the implication that open source code must include AI, and so the only recourse is to reject... all open source projects?
You know, we had a FOSS without AI like ten years ago. I'd prefer to keep that one.
I like the implication
Then you're reading it wrong. My comment says nothing of the sort.
The implication here is that it's better not to publish open source code because somewhere down the road, you might make a decision that some crowd doesn't like and they will start messing with your shit. If you do your own thing in private, hand code it if you like, vibe code it if you like, you don't have any problem and you're safe. If you write private code for your corporate overlord, no problem, you're safe AND you're getting paid. But if you share your stuff, and you're unlucky enough that it becomes popular, then some internet mob might harass you at some point.
In that context you'd be pretty stupid to donate your time and energy to anything open. You'll get maybe 10 contributors in a decade, willing to help you along the way. But one misstep and you'll get hundreds of haters. The game just isn't worth it.
it's better not to publish open source code because somewhere down the road, you might make a decision that some crowd doesn't like
I see we're going with the "woke cancel culture ruined comedy" argument.
Mate, if you're going to take your ball and leave over the slight possibility that you might have to answer to some criticism one day, you're not really living in the civilized society that I do. It seems kind of pointless to even talk to you.
What a load of brainrot. You're a psychopath if you believe it's okay to campaign against a volunteer developer for the sin of having created free stuff in a way that doesn't 100% aligns with your values. On reddit, lemmy, fucking Xitter of all places, on Discord, on Github. Yup. Totally normal way to treat a guy who's been pivotal to gaming on linux for 2 decades while you sat on your collective asses.
I get that we live in an ultra-individualistic moment of history, where people like you feel empowered to shit on the efforts of others. I get that the current geo/politic/economic situation has you convinced that you can do anything to anyone without any repercussions ever. You're just learning by example after all.
I also get that the social media climate would have you believe this is normal human behavior. But it is not. Fuck you and your ilk.
to shit on the efforts of others.
The efforts of AI, you mean.
Truthfully, I wonder if we even need that guy's 20 years any more. Maybe he should retire.
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Gloves are off.
Y'all are just prejudice. Making up what ifs and whatanoutism. If you think you can do better then fork it. But you can't, and won't.
whatanoutism
I don't think pointing out problematic aspects of LLM use is whataboutism, given that the maintainer's LLM use is the topic of conversation. A whataboutism would be "But what about Microsoft? They use GenAI too!" because that has nothing to do with this specific developer using it.
This is simply about the reasons I disapprove of using GenAI in general and relying on LLMs for coding in particular.
If you think you can do better then fork it. But you can't, and won't.
There are a lot of things I can't do myself. I don't see how that should mean I can't criticise the way they are done.
It also doesn't mean people have to stop using it entirely. Approval is not a binary. This isn't a company we're paying money to, it's not an atrocity, and it's not particularly large in scale (which is why making a witch-hunt out of it is dumb too).
Well either does the maintainer it seems. And I don't believe we look at all code. It is hard to understand someone else's code hell its hard to understand your own after awhike.
So it's all compromised, gotcha.
Lol
Just assume everything is AI generated and feel free to ignore the GPLv3 because generated code doesn't have any copyright. See how he reacts.
That's not how this works.
The legal effect of AI generated code on software licenses is untested in court and AFAIK has no explicit laws. So really no one knows how it will work yet.
The US Copyright Office has updated its guidelines:
If AI content is present, the Office will only register the work if the human contributions are sufficiently creative and if the AI-generated portions are supplementary or used as a tool under human direction. Essentially, they ask: “Is the work basically one of human authorship, with the computer merely assisting?” If yes, it can be protected (with a disclaimer that some content isn’t human-made). If no, if the AI’s role overshadows the human’s, then the work, or at least the AI-created portion, is not eligible for copyright.
In Canada, where I live:
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.
For now, anyone using AI in creative projects should keep documentation of their own input and creative choices. Emphasize the parts of the work where you exercised judgment or selected elements because those are likely what copyright will cover. And remember that copyright in AI-generated content is a fast-moving area.
https://www.foundationsoflaw.com/post/can-you-claim-copyright-in-ai-generated-works-in-canada
Makes sense to me.
The thing is, many of these guidelines are related to finalized products fully created by AI. As in, the AI produced a written or drawn work at the end of it that on it's own is the product (Eg. an article or an image). This will probably apply to code in some reasonable way, but at the end of the day there's only so many ways to write code since it's syntax and not as flexible as language. It actually has to produce something that works, so there are far less finite arrangements.
If you were to compare code written by two people at two companies, doing a very similar project, you wouldn't be surprised to find two pieces of code doing almost the same thing in the same syntax, barring synthetic sugar like naming and coding conventions. Neither will likely have violated the other's copyright since simultaneous invention is a thing. And if they happened to have similar prior experiences, it's even more likely.
Likewise, the way the code was incorporated into a project as a whole might sufficiently constitute a human contribution, and perhaps even the more important contribution. You likely wouldn't retain the copyright on the specific snippet, but rarely are small code snippets enough on their own to claim copyright over to begin with. It's the program or library or system as a whole that's the finished product.
Just assume everything is AI generated
This is the part that will definitely not work.
If that AI slopper freaks out about alleging conplete lack of threshold of originality, it's already a win.
It is now, strycore made it happen.
Tell me to not use your software without telling me to not use your software.
It's completely a coincidence that all games are no longer working in Lutris here, on multiple machines, after upgrading from 0.5.19 to 0.5.20. Weird.
I downgraded and everything works again. I did not try 0.5.22 or the quickly removed 0.5.21.
I guess we know where to fork from.
I guess we know where to fork from.
Honestly: Why? Lutris Gnome headerbar UI sucks anyway. Looks and behaves like crap especially under Gamescope but in non-Gnome desktops it's not too great as well. GloriousEggroll and team created umu launcher to make creation of that sort of graphical front ends much easier and a bunch of those popped up already. Might just as well migrate to one of those than to maintain yet another software fork.
Oh man, you are right. I went fron 5.18 to 5.20 and nothing worked anymore. I spent hours troubleshooting before I reinstalled the current game I was playing. It worked but it runs noticeably slower. For a newbie, how does one downgrade? Assuming there is a command or do I have to uninstall first?
Someone suggested the program Warehouse to me, but I haven't tried it. On Arch, I still had the version I wanted in my package manager's cache so it was a single command.
sudo pacman -U file:///var/cache/pacman/pkg/lutris-0.5.19-9-any.pkg.tar.zst
If you are using the flatpak (Bazzite, Steam Deck, etc.) unfortunately, it's more complicated.
- Exit to desktop mode.
- Open Konsole (it's in System in the main menu).
- If you haven't set a root password yet, run
passwd, make it reasonably secure and don't forget it. I believe setting a root password enables the Deck to be controlled remotely over ssh with said password. Be safe. - Run
flatpak remote-info --log flathub net.lutris.Lutris. Lutris was installed as system for me. I think that is the default, so probably choose 1 for system if it asks. - You will see a commit with the subject "Update Lutris to 0.5.20". The previous version is in the list right after that. Note that hash of 64 hexadecimals.
- Run
sudo flatpak update --commit=19ee79d455b8e50f057911a2bba279efcb960ee6d565f794e9c9d41c290dcd14 net.lutris.Lutris, supply the root password, and accept the changes. (Use the hash from step 5.) - Run
sudo flatpak mask net.lutris.Lutrisand supply root password to prevent Lutris from being updated. We will probably have problems in the future when the flatpak environment gets deprecated,sudo flatpak mask --remove net.lutris.Lutriswould allow it to update again.
Wow, thank you for this! I really appreciate the detailed instructions!
After reading your comment, I tried it for myself, running "Age Of Wonders 4" through Lutris 0.5.22. Nothing happened. As in, literally nothing, game didn't launch, and no error. Then downgraded Lutris to 0.5.19, and first I got a message saying that wine needed to install something, and then I got an error message saying "A java script error occurred in the main process".
So the results of my experiment are inconclusive. I consider an error message a better than result than nothing visibly happening, because an error message at least tells me nothing its not working, instead of letting me wait and wait.
So, yes, it appears that the quality of Lutris has declined after the developer started using Claude Code. However, my experiment was just a quick and dirty experiment, and ultimately further research is necessary.
I propose the following experiment, keep in mind that this is basically a rough sketch of the procedure:
- Set up two virtual machines running linux, a and b. (TODO: Decide on distro)
- Install Lutris 0.5.22 on a, and 0.5.19 on b.
- Try out several games on both a and b, both installed and launched through lutris, and record how well they run.
lutris -d will run it and print debug messages to the terminal.
I think the root of the problem is that updating changes what WINE and Proton versions are being used, even for games that are already installed. That pretty much negates what most people are using Lutris for. (WINE prefix management)
I just wanted to try and figure out whether the quality of Lutris had indeed declined as you said in your earlier comment. I'm not trying to get the game running, "Age of Wonders 4" is just the first title in my library.
Edit: But thanks anyway.
is lutris slop now
i can't help but notice quite a lot of LLM generated commits, is lutris slop now or will
@strycoresee the error of their ways
Regardless of your opinion on AI, it is not productive or helpful to open this as an issue.
I had a donation to Lutris, and was already skeptical of the dev's ability to maintain their huge (and very buggy) python/gtk3 codebase. Now I know that giving money to the dev would likely makes things bigger and buggier. This is useful information, and it's better to talk about it somewhere where the dev will respond and relatively few bystanders will hear the discussion.
I'm not saying you shouldn't ever raise this sort of thing as an issue (in general I think issues should only be for bugs, but the annoying reality is there's rarely a better place for discussions that get visibility), I'm saying the specific content of the message is the problem. There are ways to critique the usage of AI and discuss alternatives that wouldn't be an issue.
For example,
I see a lot of AI code is used in this repository. AI code is bad because (reasons the user believes it is bad here). Could you please share why/what AI is being used for specifically so we can try to remove the necessity?
Aside
I'm not saying AI code isn't bad, I'm just saying different people think it's bad for different reasons. The specific problem the reporter has with AI code may warrant a specific response.
Perhaps more maintainers are needed, maybe someone more familiar with third party libs being used could mentor, etc. From there it really depends on what the response from the maintainer is.
What's not helpful and never going to get anyone to change their opinion is just saying things like "when will @mention see the error of their ways". As humans we respond to this by digging our heels in, which as seen in the issue the maintainer did by becoming less transparent about where AI is and is not used. Had the reporter taken a more diplomatic approach they would have been more likely to get the changes they wanted.
It's also such self entitlement, they were being open about it before but had to deal with childish people like this throwing a tantrum.
If its such an issue then thank them for being honest, don't use it and move on, no ones entitled to free software though some act like it.
Not all llm use in code gen is bad, as long as its properly reviewed and disclosed. That's not the same as vibe coding and having no idea about the output.
Yeah, that's sort of my gripe with it. If you genuinely believe all AI code is bad (which is fine, not saying that's a "wrong" opinion) maybe try to help the volunteers instead of just insulting them on an issue tracker.
Regardless of your opinion on AI, it is not productive or helpful to open this as an issue.
Disagree. It drew attention to the fact that the maintainers of lutris are of questionable character and helped people like me understand that lutris should be avoided completely.
As the maintainer said, the commits with AI code were already specified. See one here. It was never a secret.
He now removed the code authorship from Claude lmao
Hence the past tense. I think it was pretty petty to do this.
It was my impression that the AI stuff only started with a relatively recent update
Maybe, I don't know much about this tool or their practices. I only meant that it was factual that they were mentioning which commits had AI generated code in them.
shame is a powerful weapon
i for one intend to keep making people feel bad for using slop generators
But as you can see, the maintainer didn't stop using them and will also now not disclose which commits have them. Humans are emotional creatures and part of being rational is acknowledging that. Folks can be critical of AI usage while phrasing the issue more tactfully and would likely see more success when doing so.
This specific developer is not the only audience to this behavior.
What do you think is more likely from devs who use AI who see this?
- They will stop using AI.
- They will stop saying when they use AI, like this one did.
They will obviously stop saying they use AI, much like republicans pretend they're not racist. So?
I call the both of them cowards who refuse to stand up for what they supposedly believe in.
I don't really think there's a problem with saying this sort of thing about devs who use AI if you believe all AI code usage is bad. I'm only saying that if you actually want them to stop using AI instead of just expressing your disdain then there are better approaches. Opening an issue to insult a volunteer developer on their personal project will not get the change you want to see.
I am a strong believer in the power of shame. Republican racists must be taught that their options are either to bend to my will or shut up permanently. I don't really care if they agree with me or not.
Now, that's pretty provocative. I am not presently mounting rifles at LLM users. But, I do think it shows that I have more determination than you do.
I guess that's sort of the disconnect for me. I'm imagining a world where the maintainer, instead of using AI and signing the commits off that they did, that instead they were putting a Nazi slogan in every commit message. My opinion would be different. I wouldn't have this middle of the road sort of "maybe you should try to actually get them to change what they're doing instead of shaming them." Hell, if that were the case I'd probably join in too, or at least throw a thumbs down on their defense of themselves. And I'm not trying to compare AI usage to genocide or say that folks view them as equivalent, I'm just saying that there are topics where I do think going fully on the offensive are warranted.
Maybe I really should self reflect on that, because I am a firm believer that protests aren't meant to be comfortable. Maybe me saying "they shouldn't insult a volunteer on an issue tracker" is the same as people complaining about "politics in football" by saying Kaepernick shouldn't have been taking a knee during the national anthem, in some ways.
Haha!
You know, you get a pass. Not that you agree with me, I don't know that yet, I just wasn't expecting that heel turn.
It may be that he could be sued for license infringement for violating the GPL 3 license by feeding code and using improperly licensed code.
Idk how all the lawsuits will fall, but imo, by not disclosing AI use it jeopardizes the license requirements for everyone who ever contributed to the project. Best case the project is essentially public domain for any components edited after this change.
Yeah, I'm interested to see how it turns out. Realistically I don't think we'll see models training on GPL code making the model or it's output "GPL'ed" because (I think, but I could be mistaken) there's already been a court case about training models on copyrighted content and the court ruled that it was okay. The GPL, while extremely restrictive, is still more permissive than the default "all rights reserved" approach of copyright. That is to say, if courts ruled that copyrighted content in models is fine they'd also rule that copyleft content in models is fine. (Which sucks, and not really something I'm sure I agree with, but I'm also not a lawyer or a judge.)
My understanding is that, regardless of it was AI or not, machine output cannot be copyrighted. I'm not sure where the line is and how much tweaking you'd need to do to for it to suddenly become something you're protected under copyright. With things like code, as opposed to images, I think we'll likely see that devs get copyright over it. Because I think most of the time they're tweaking it some. Generally with image generation I don't think folks are tweaking the output, unless they themselves are an artist, and for the most part most artists I've seen are more opposed to AI than devs. But who knows? It'll probably take someone copying code that was created by AI and the creator/prompter having to backup that what they did was enough to grant them protection under copyright law. But by that point, I'm really talking out of my depth, this is just a guess.
My most realistic outlook on it is fairly pessimistic. I think model creators will still be able to use copyrighted and copyleft works however they see fit and I think for all practical purposes most folks using generators will likely be tweaking or prompting creatively enough in some way to successfully argue that the result is something they made using the AI as a tool rather than something the computer just generated on its own.
Imo, I'd prefer a "contamination" approach where the strictest licenses in the training data applies to all outputs. I doubt such a rule would get through big business filters but it would maximize the public good and any country that does manage something like that would probably gain the most benefits from these companies.
The strictest license in the training set is definitely just the normal copyright protections, which is more strict than copyleft.
Edit: explanation, this is because everything is inherently copyrighted. You have rights to protections. So you're forgoing some of those protective rights by licensing it out.
Naw dog
Well, it used to be at least
That's a weird way to run a community facing project, if you want to engage the community that is.
If you treat it like your own personal hobby, you can do whatever you like.
This explains why it would break constantly.... But that's also why people moved to other solutions.
so maybe it wasn't just my incompetence when it always felt like it had a mind of it's own; especially when adding and starting up a new game, sometimes it works ootb and sometimes it's a hopeless shitshow
Lovely.
I haven't been able to get the Elder Scrolls Online (ESO) to run under Steam lately. I was able to get it running under Lutris, and it was fine until the 5.20 update. Haven't been able to play at all. It was good while it lasted, I guess. Time to look for a new solution. If anybody has any recs, I'd love to hear them. I'm running Linux Mint 22.3.
EDIT
Thanks for the recommendations and advice, all! I'm going to give Heroic a shot and see how it goes.
Bottles works much in the same way, and I always prefered it to Lutris. It's also pretty easy to use plain old Wine if you're comfy at all in the terminal. Pair it with winetricks and you can run most games with little hastle
is there a website like lutris has with all the install scripts others have made?
You run the game's actual installer exe file in the bottle to install the game. No installation script needed.
With wine you just need to know what winetricks to use, e.g. like if a game needs dotnet 4.0 or another windows runtime/prerequisite. Winehq has a similar premise with different compatabiltiy ratings and steps others have taken to troubleshoot. You wont get installer scripts but you will get good directions most of the time. Any game rated platinum or gold is a breeze to set up
Imma be honest, outside of Proton I just hate dealin with wine.
Which is why i liked Lutris and its install scripts so much.
but i will definitely bookmark that link in case i give wine a try again. tyvm
you should be able to just move the prefix into the folder managed by bottles or heroic, or add the existing folder location to either of those. All of them just present visuals on top of wine/proton. Might also have to manually download and set the wine/proton version from whichever apps built in management.
Bottles is also ran by an absolute shitty person who's slowly going insane.
Frankly I would avoid bottles even more then lutris and if your going to avoid both just use herotic.
Oh no, what's happening with Bottles now?
PortProton is a mighty thing in my experience. Has both a game library and the ability to add apps to app menu in two clicks.
As the name implies, offers a wide offering of Proton versions (Steam, GE, CachyOS, GDK, EM, Sarek, version for HoYoPlay...), as well as Wine. Can detect popular games and choose perfect settings. Has one-click installs for some popular games and launchers. Available as Flatpak.
Downsides: the only languages available are English, Russian and Spanish, and advanced config can be more involved than with Lutris. In fairness though, you'll barely ever need it.
Why cant you revert back to a previous version?
The system package for Lutris is version 5.14.... Hmmm...
Is this the same Lutris maintainer who took it out of the mint repos because he didn't like some minor thing they did?
I wouldn't be shocked if that kinda thing happened lol (or if Mathieu at least tried), but why would Lutris be in the Mint repos anyway?
They're pretty small afaik, with the Ubuntu and Debian repos being used for non-Mint specific things
All I could find was that Lutris "dropped support" for Mint a number of years ago, whatever that means, but Mint is now displayed alongside Ubuntu & ElementaryOS on the downloads page anyways
Lutris has been shit for months now - I guess I just figured out why.
I think there is a very practical reason to attribute AI contributions: AI models are improving in ability. Being able to know when and what contributed the code, would allow people to more easily deploy newer AI to examine the work of previous AI, to improve or replace it. Plus, some AI will likely be specialized in specific domains, so you wouldn't want different agents from stepping on each other's toes. Something oriented around GUI design, probably shouldn't be handling graphics optimizations.
This removal of authorship will just make things more difficult in the long run.
Whatis the best alternative to lutris?
Bottles and Heroic are two great options that I preferred even before this slop sign
Faugus Launcher is getting to be popular.
Has most options that Lutris or Bottles present in their GUI at this point with less cruft like adding entire game libraries from other clients or the mostly useless and often outdated install scripts.
Gamescope doesn't work yet, despite having a toggle for it according to their github readme.
I've been using cartridges for a while now.
It looks like the issue submitter is trolling a number of projects on their personal anti-AI crusade. I would take it more seriously if they had reviewed any of the PRs and identified issues with them.
Yes AI slop is an issue (especially for maintainers) but it can still be a useful tool. If the maintainers want to use AI on their own code it should be their choice. Most forks fail because the righteous feeling of finally getting your own way on a repo you control usually falls away as you realise the people actually doing the work didn't follow you.
Honestly the need for Lutris has gone way way down in the last couple years. I don't know about forking it, but I think it'd be pretty easy to just avoid it. Less because there's any concrete issues that I could point out, but more as a political statement and loss of confidence.
Doesn’t personally affect me, but I understand that some people do
GenAI use should be declared if significant
After their refusal to update their ssl keys for the Debian repo, I'm not at all suprised by this.
There are people who would share their pornhub activity before they share what they coded with AI.
I had to google "Lutris" to remember what it was. I have it installed... I guess this post made me realize how little I use it and that I should uninstall the slop.
Great...
So how's Heroic for playing older PC games installed from discs?
It has a 'run installer' option during setup (and in that games options section afterwards)
I already stopped using Lutris for a while. Most of the things I try to install with it straight up don't work anymore.
Edit:
Anyway, is there an alternative to Lutris, besides installing games and programs with Steam?
Bottles or Heoric Game Launcher
Yeah I really enjoy Heroic. I moved to it when Lutris had a bug a couple years ago (hell, might be still in there) where it would flood my DNS server with over 1000 queries in under a second. It took me 2 weeks to really notice what was happening because as soon as it happened, suddenly I had no internet. At the time I was on Pihole which has a default flood control built in.
I kept going down a rabbit hole of researching Linux network problems, tried a dozen fixes, kept happening. Had to be very thorough and pay attention to what I was actively doing/using when it happened.
"Downside" of Heroic is I no longer have Ubisoftsupport. Also, fuck Ubisoft anyhow.
They already re-written it, or did they say they're going to re-write it?
My number one tip with Bottles for anyone trying it for the first time, is to move anything you’re trying to run into the prefix it creates. It doesn’t behave well trying to run anything outside of it, even if you set the working directory.
wine bottles
Fair response to someone opening an issue just to broadly complain about AI imo
Totally. I mean I hate AI too for various common reasons, but this isn't the way to make an argument.
While it may become impossible to determine whether those digitized pixels are "real" or not, I sense that analog will be making a comeback in the not too distant future.
AI can run ~1000 times faster on analog hardware, so there's probably a lot of research into it.
It's only an issue if Lutris becomes closed source or the available code becomes impossible to review by humans.
As I see it:
- any open source code that is unreviewed by others (mostly hidden work) can be dangerous to use.
- Maintainer is still maintainer unless fork
- Maintainer still... Maintains Lutris which I'm unable to do
- Maintainer is and admits to being a Troll. Also admits to using AI. Both are better than trying to hide it.
- See point one.
I get the AI hate, but as Maintainer does, I believe it being shitty cause we don't live in a good or nice system, and it can't be removed. Maximum is it being forbidden, which somehow does not make it feel safer at all.
Whether I like it or not, it's there. Let's get back to point one.
Honestly? It’s a front end for some other tools to play games on Linux, if someone finds a performance issue or security hole we can react, but if this makes the Maintainers’s life easier I don’t know how much I really care, John Henry can fork it if they want and show how much better work they do than Claude
I've been using Lutris for several years, but after reading about the LLM additions, I've removed it from my system and am now solely using Heroic for my non-Steam games.
I would never use the product, just for that very line...
I hope someone did a Mutris fork.
Meh, I don't really care. It's a free product and it does what I need it to. Just open an issue if there's actually something wrong with the code itself or pick another software if you disagree with the maintainer. There's really no need for drama here.
It's more of a political stance.
For a good example check out Asahi Linux: https://asahilinux.org/docs/project/policies/slop/
It is the opinion of the Board that Large Language Models (LLMs), herein referred to as Slop Generators, are unsuitable for use as software engineering tools, particularly in the Free and Open Source Software movement.
The use of Slop Generators in any contribution to the Asahi Linux project is expressly forbidden. Their use in any material capacity where code, documentation, engineering decisions, etc. are largely created with the "help" of a Slop Generators will be met with a single warning. Subsequent disregard for this policy will be met with an immediate and permanent ban from the Asahi Linux project and all associated spaces.
Common Asahi Linux W
That’s why we cannot have nice things.
People on the internet going nuclear about how a dev (who dedicates his spare time to create a free, non-profit piece of software) works.
Also they’re not contributing or providing solutions, but feel entitled to demand and criticize. Loving all about it.
Especially true considering that the Lutris team has been looking for active devs for quite some time and is only maintained by a few people. If they have to rely on AI to keep the project alive, maybe the ones complaining should submit some actual code instead of opening issues in their personal crusade.
It's time to hardfork it!
With bigger blocks!
AI bros try not to be assholes challenge [IMPOSSIBLE]
AI assisted coding is okay as long as you're transparent about it and don't do this shit.
AI assisted coding is okay as long as you’re transparent about it and don’t do this shit.
It allows idiots like me who cannot program for real to make some useful tools (I use it to make Basic scripts for my own use in LibreOffice, for example). That said, IMO it's crucial that these things are self contained, at least for now. So far all LLMs are way too error prone and no way is the Lutris author reviewing all generated code. Nobody does. All productivity gains are lost then.
It's not my decision wether lutris has ai code in it or not. The maintainers and contributors can decide what works for them, that's how open source works. I never found a use for lutris and maybe that's why I don't care.
The Lutris team is small, not corporate, not speed obsessed, etc. I'm inclined to trust them to be among those developers who can use generated code without slopping nonsense all over a code base they know they will probably be stuck maintaining.
People use LLMs to code now, this is not news. Why is claude taking credit in the first place?
Anything generated by an LLM cannot claim copyright, per supreme court rulings. So it is critical to attribute the portions of code that cannot be licensed.
This.... is incorrect. Generated code can and has been copyrighted, but not by the model generating it. Humans can get copyrights, digital entities cannot (nor can your pet monkey.) Now, can a human copyright code they did not author? Yes, absolutely. Courts only care that a human had a hand in as little as refining the output or making selections for the agent. Copyright claims look for exercised creative judgement and infringement on existing copyrights.
I tried Faugus for WoW and it ran like shit. I tried Lutris because it was pre-installed on Bazzite and wow was the performance better.
A shame that we're maybe not seeing how the person writing the issue and the maintainer agree on fundamental politics. Capitalism bad. Fascism bad.
Good that it don't need this.
Ugh, i regret i went the easy way with just the "gaming meta package" of my distro. Now i cant uninstall Lutris the easy way because of dependencies. I havent used Lutris for months either way but it taking up a bit space didnt bother me. Now it bothers me though.
edit: Sweet, i got it uninstalled with some help. Wont share the command lines because you really shouldnt copy them from a bumbling idiot like me.
FFS i just move two giant modlists from my windows migration...
Someone please fork Lutris so we can make a sanitary version without this filth !
Anyone else out here searching wtf is lutris
It used to be more popular when Linux gaming was harder.
Its still very very useful for retro gaming on linux and running pirated stuff.
Sincerely... if you can give a single shit about ai in code, you should be able to tell it was used. If you cannot differentiate human from ai authored code, you do not have a seat at the table. jeer from the soap boxes. code is not art. code is code. get over it. does it compile or run and do the thing, cool, fuck cares who or what wrote it. clutching pearls yall cant even define.
I have been a sponsor on Patreon almost since the account was opened (maybe 4 months in). It's my longest-running Patreon sponsorship.
I've gone ahead and cancelled. Many thanks to the developers, sorry it had to end like this.
Biggest problem with this will be when whatever agent they use to write code inevitably spits out copyrighted code and the project gets killed.
If you don't know every single codebase the genAI LLM is trained off of, you cannot trust it. Might as well be playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun. You'll have better odds of surviving than if you use genAI LLM slop.
I never understood why people love Lutris so much. I've always found it extremely overrated, even before they started vibecoding it.
I don’t think this is going to go the way they thing it will.
Everyone will forget about this by next week. Not a huge deal IMO. Its open source already so the code stealing doesnt cross any lines IMO.
This is the way.
Other cool techniques:
- keep a private git repo with CLAUDE.md etc and then push into the public repo without those files.
- insert bugs and typos that are so clumsy no AI would ever do them
Holy fuck, people dunking on guy who works for free.
If you don't like AI commits, write your own
So any disagreement should be met with immediate forking?
No raising of grievances, just silence and then forking?
Or is it only silence and forking for open source?
As soon as anyone is paid then comments are allowed ?
Kind feels like a reductive half-answer, but you do you.
If you are going to harass the guy? Then yes just STFU instead and fork the repo. You people are insufferable.
If you saw harassment in that first exchange then whatever you mean by "you people" is a group I’m fine with being in.
That's some thin skin.
Lemmings being outraged is hilarious to me. We're just gonna pretend the pre-LLM time period didn't have people mindlessly copy paste code into all of our known projects? At least with LLMs you can keep asking questions/sources for each prompt response unlike in the past. In the past you'd just get rude remarks by someone who ultimately didn't help you.
We're just gonna pretend the pre-LLM time period didn't have people mindlessly copy paste code into all of our known projects?
No, IEatDaFeesh, that's something that first-years do. Are you a first-year?
Ohh, so you invent your own code/algorithms for every project? I am assuming someone of your caliber doesn't ever need to install packages with functions other people made (gasp) because that would be beneath you right? Even copying the code straight from the documentation is an insult to our intelligence! Developers who use LLMs as a search engine to find documentation are morally wrong because that leads to copying code from the documentation! You're right, only first years would copy code outlined in the documentation!
You've opened my eyes because now I see that even using the base functions of a language is technically copying code from the creators of said language. I realize that I never wrote those sort functions in the backend so I'm committing computer science sin!
Every library my team has ever included in a project has gone through rounds of evaluation to make sure it is 1. publically trusted, 2. well tested, 3. and still in active development. I have no idea what this has to do with mindlessly copying code.
so you invent your own code/algorithms for every project?
If you're going to submit an algorithm that isn't maintained and you don't know how it works, I'm not merging your pull request.
if you just straight up copypasta'd code before AI you were just as big of an idiot as these sloppers are.
I don't think people realize how effective current gen AI is, and are instead drawing opinions from years old chatgpt or Google "ai overviews" or whatever they call it. If you know what you're doing, which seems self evident here, AI tools can massively expand your software engineering productivity. AI "coauthoring" I always read as a marketing move, ultimately the submitting human is and should be responsible for the content. You don't and can't know what process they used to make it, evaluate it on its own merits.
There's a massive pile of ethical, moral, and political issues with use of AI, absolutely. But this is "but you participate in capitalism, therefore you're a hypocrite" tier of criticism. If amoral corporations are the only ones using these tools, and open source "stays pure", all we get is even more power concentrating with the corporations. This isn't Batman, “This is the weapon of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it.”
This is close to paradox of tolerance territory, wherein if one side uses the best weapons and the other doesn't out of moral restraint, the outcome is the amoral side winning.
Also on a technical note, the public domain/non copyrightable arguments are wrong. The cases that have been decided so far have consistently ruled that there needs to be substantial human authorship true, but that's a pretty low floor. Basically, you can't copyright a work that's the result of a single prompt. Effective use of AI in non trivial code based involves substantial discretion in picking out what to address, the process of addressing it, and rejecting, modifying, and itersting on outputs. Lutris is a large engineering project with a lot of human authorship over time, anything the author does with AI at this point is going to be substantially human authored.
Also, Open Claw isn't the apocalyptic vulnerability like it's reported as being. Any model with search and browser access has a non zero chance of prompt injection compromise, absolutely. But using Open Claw therefore vulnerable isn't a sound jump to make, Open Claw doesn't even necessarily have browser access in the first place. Again, capabilities have improved as well; this isn't the old days when you could message "ignore previous instructions" and have that work. Someone did an experiment lately wherein they set up a Claude Opus 4.6 model in an environment with an email and secrets. I don't recall for sure if it was using Open Claw specifically, but that style harness. They challenged the Internet to email the bot and try to convince it to email back the secrets. Nobody even got it to reply.
Tldr: it's coming for us all, sticking your head in the sand isn't going to save you.
But this is "but you participate in capitalism, therefore you're a hypocrite" tier of criticism
There is no contest going on. No competition. There's no rush for productivity.
You do not NEED to use genAI.
Check out Asahi Linux for a great example of a good AI policy:
https://asahilinux.org/docs/project/policies/slop/
It is the opinion of the Board that Large Language Models (LLMs), herein referred to as Slop Generators, are unsuitable for use as software engineering tools, particularly in the Free and Open Source Software movement.
The use of Slop Generators in any contribution to the Asahi Linux project is expressly forbidden. Their use in any material capacity where code, documentation, engineering decisions, etc. are largely created with the "help" of a Slop Generators will be met with a single warning. Subsequent disregard for this policy will be met with an immediate and permanent ban from the Asahi Linux project and all associated spaces.
-
LLMs are not a vital resource like food or electricity. Refusing to participate will at worst be an inconvenience.
-
Software can coexist. One application won't kill another just because its developers can put out more code per hour. If it were otherwise, Linux wouldn't exist.
Electricity isn't a vital resource either, humans have lived without it for most of existence
I didn't read all but I believe anti ai stance should be about principles or politics (what would be a better word?), not how incapable ai currently is because it will get better.
I use AI tools all the time. It works well under supervision for things that should be relatively trivial but not enough for a human to do it quickly. It is also nowhere near good enough for unsupervised programming. A lot of times it can't even get the commit messages right, which misleading commit messages are worse than lazy commit messages. See this official OpenClaw Nix repo, and as you can see it also struggles to do tasks as basic as making a readable README.md file, which the fact that it can't even do that convinced me that the entire OpenClaw project is snakeoil. For prompt injection vulnerabilities, even their own project has that:
- Check if Determinate Nix is installed (if not, install it)
Lutris was always worthless slop.
Good for him. Y'all are insanely prejudiced and have lost the thread.
AI is for losers and suckers
This is every thread on the topic of AI.
It's toxic comments and spam downvoting disagreement. It's low effort performative 'activism' by people, most of which are too lazy to even type a comment.
Anyone participating in the harassment of an open source dev needs to fuck right off. Their opinion about AI doesn't give them license to be toxic assholes.
But it’s so much easier for me to complain and pile on burn out open source maintainers than for me to be part of the solution
/s
And, as with all hotbutton topics, there are certain to be a large amount of bots amping up the outrage and confusion
Based. Get those AI whiners out.
There must be a /s missing there. 😄
Not at all. LLM 's are very useful. Yes they can write slop but they can also automate a lot of arbitrary work away. The AI hate has become a bit of a cult refusing the see the things LLM's are useful for and only focussing on its faults.
The dev even took the effort to mark the LLM made changes but that only resulted in arbitrary whining.
If this was a case of the LLM being used to write unit tests, or document code, or even being used to do more complicated verification or refactoring I'm reasonably sure people would gripe a bit but just resign themselves to moving on. If that were the case then absolutely this would be LLM as tooling, and the developer would state that in a heartbeat, I'm sure eventually this would lead to greater usage of these tools.
Instead what we have is LLM contributed code, with all the baggage that entails and then an over the top response.
In my, admittedly amatuer, assessment: Eventually an open source project is going to be shutdown over use of copyrighted code. It would be nice if that happening is a tragic dy for that one project, not a chain reaction that breaks a sizable portion of the open source catalogue.
Plus as a sidenote, we can see that using LLMs actively degenerates the cognitive capabilities of the user. I would love to hold on to my belief that the developers who make the software I enjoy are better than me.
Holy purity test I think people in this thread are slightly over reacting.
Sometimes, I ask OpenClaw to generate some code
https://github.com/lutris/lutris/discussions/6530#discussioncomment-16088355
OpenClaw is extremely vulnerable to prompt injection. If the maintainer is using it to author code, you absolutely can not trust that the code is safe from exploits obfuscated as unintentional logic errors or bugs.
There's purity testing, and then there's being cautious about running code made by someone who is doing something incredibly stupid and unsafe. This is the latter.
You are assuming the author is being unsafe & not auditing code for very basic security issues.
Let me present this angle, small teams of volunteer open source developers finally have a way to help ease the amount of code they produce, but you want them to continue doing all the work manually because AI hurts your feefees.
Further, you are openly declaring you don't trust the devs to audit their own code.
If you can find a security vulnerability in the code (it is open source after all) I'll cede, but otherwise, I think it is a good thing responsible AI use can help shoulder the work these folks do for our benefit.
For a research experiment, a university snuck malicious commits with subtle but exploitable bugs past the maintainers of the Linux kernel.
I trust the Linux kernel maintainers to be capable of finding obfuscated exploits far more than I trust this guy, and even they failed to identify a bunch of them.
Two things, the experiment you are referring to was specifically designed to deceive whereas AI vulnerabilities would just be simple bugs.
Secondly, the security requirements of the Linux Kernel are way more important/stringent than Lutris, which has no special access & is often even further sandboxed if installed via Flatpak.
I just don't see this as an issue until it proves to be one. People are always welcome to fork a "pure" version.
the experiment you are referring to was specifically designed to deceive whereas AI vulnerabilities would just be simple bugs.
In my original comment, I was specifically referring to OpenClaw. Given that it doesn’t live in a vacuum and can be influenced with prompt injection, it's not safe to assume that whatever bugs it creates aren't specifically designed to deceive.
Secondly, the security requirements of the Linux Kernel are way more important/stringent than Lutris, which has no special access & is often even further sandboxed if installed via Flatpak.
Sure, but that's not the point I was trying to make. You said that I don't trust the guy to audit the code for malicious intent before committing and I gave you a reason why nobody should: if multiple people with decades of experience in a specialized domain can't catch vulnerabilities disguised as subtle bugs, one guy who isn't scrutinizing the changes nearly as hard definitely won't.
You'd think open source movement would take advantage of VC funded tools to fight against the big tech but instead we have literal ludites.
I have over 20 years of professional coding experience and I use Claude these days. Sure it makes mistakes and can write bad code but I'm not an idiot, I ran teams of dozens of engineers underneath me - I can handle a bot and fix it's mistake. The maintainer of Lutris can probably too.
All I'm saying that this anti-ai mentality is fucking stupid and anyone who engages with it in such a binary way is fucking stupid too.
First off, the luddites were right back in the day.
Second, just because you can use something effectively doesn't make it good in general.
There are people who can have multiple credit cards for years and never carry a balance, or walk into a casino with $100, lose it all, and quit right there.
But most people can't, and being one of the few that can doesn't make it safe or good overall. Credit cards and casinos are still predatory and a detriment overall to the population.
I puffed a few cigs back in high school and college to see what all the fuss was about, didn't get it. But I personally know multiple people that did the same thing, got hooked almost immediately, and took years to quit. Cigarettes are bad for you and highly addictive. The fact that they never hooked me doesn't change that.
Third, I'm not sure how using LLMs is "fighting against big tech." unless you just mean using their tools to build FOSS more effectively.
But that's the whole point, it's not at all clear that LLMs enable that for most people. In fact, there's already quite a bit of data to indicate the opposite. That using LLMs results in worse code, worse development of skills like critical reasoning and problem solving, worse productivity, worse security, and undeniable environmental harm.
unless you just mean using their tools to build FOSS more effectively.
Until Anthropic eventually claims that they have ownership of any software written with the help of Claude.
They were not right. What are you wearing now? You don't destroy the machines - you take them.
How do you propose they should have taken them? Like, just lifted them in the night while the cops were busy jerking off?
By changing society and policy to benefit everyone rather than a few oligarchs? There are more of us than there are them.
In fact, this is exactly what we've been doing since the ludittes and you might even say it's working rather well, slowly, but working nevertheless.
And this is something you have to do instead of breaking them? The policy pen must be held in both hands while writing, I take it.
And what you broke the machines then what? This teenage angst is cringe my dude.
Life continues as it was, or you build another. That's kind of a silly question.
Great, you really accomplished a lot by breaking the looms then!
Your absurdly strong pro technology fervor is actually blinding you from seeing this normally.
To get a model ship out of a bottle, you either need to reverse whatever method got it in there, deconstruct the ship, or break the glass.
To get concessions out of your masters, you have to able to think like this.
So FOSS Devs using ChatGPT are taking them...how?
Yeah, you can't, because it's not claimable, it's proprietary software, even the "open" models are restricted in their licensing and usability.
Perhaps local models will make some positive difference in the future, but likely not. I suspect that decades down the line, we will see LLMs in a similar light as asbestos or Teflon. Things that were hailed as "miracle products" that seemed amazing at first, but had incredibly destructive side-effects that we only found out about long after the proliferation.
If something is overall destructive to society, I don't want to "take" it, I want it gone.
I don't want worker-owned casinos, or online gambling markets, or cigarette companies, I want those things gone. They don't make us better off or more free, they harm and enslave us.
Good luck with that bruh
This isn't just about anti-ai mentality, it's the "I deleted the authorship so you can't fork it out or prove that it's causing issues". This kind of insanity has been happening repeatedly on that project, it's time to let it go and find new solutions.
This is clearly a response to the luddites? No?
It was a response to
All I’m saying that this anti-ai mentality is fucking stupid and anyone who engages with it in such a binary way is fucking stupid too.
but I'm not an idiot,
And you don't think that makes you the exception among this cohort?
Not it's an implication thay only someone lazy or an idiot would fail to fix mistakes produced by their bot assist. Worse case you just dont take the changes - you press the buttons.
You're way too optimistic about the average person.
This is America in a nutshell: People without skills. Without knowledge, without foresight demanding to be served exactly the way they want to be served
And you better do it for free!
The fuck does country have to do with any of this