Lutris maintainer use AI generated code for some time now. The maintainer also removed the co-authorship of Claude, so no one knows which code was generated by AI.
Anyway, I was suspecting that this “issue” might come up so I’ve removed the Claude co-authorship from the commits a few days ago. So good luck figuring out what’s generated and what is not.
Good point there, that sounds like it would be annoying and I’m sure I would want to fix the bugs as fast as possible too, but then you are using AI and introducing how many more new bugs, and ones that you will not easily be able to track down since you didn’t write the code, so then you are locked in to using AI. Personally I would rather have buggy software, nothing is perfect. Open source developers don’t owe anyone anything, so if people are being assholes about bugs that’s pretty lame.
yeah that’s what’s bugging me about all this. “remember the human” is even more important now.
regarding introducing new bugs, both high-profile cases from this past week have been seasoned developers of tools with extensive test suites that claimed to have tested everything thoroughly. when someone with 30 years of experience say they’ve tested something, i tend to trust that judgement. but on the other hand we’ve also seen the cognitive decline heavy llm usage seems to lead to…