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.
Am I allowed to have an unpopular narrative here?
There are levels of vibe coding, and it’s possible to use AI without vibe coding at all.
If you’re very targeted in what you’re having the AI do and you carefully review the code, it can be a great tool.
For example, “make this html grid sortable and add a download button that creates a csv file.” You know exactly what this does, it’s self contained, and it’s something you know can just be copied from stack overflow and applied to your code.
That works, and works well.
“Create an app that…” is vibe coded slop.
Even if this works, you’ll be stealing someone else’s code without authorship attribution for anything that’s a non-trivial algorithm.
The copyright/license issues that come with it due to the current unregulated nature of ai are a completely different issue to the vibecode slop allegations.
no. it’s one aspect of many. Using slop is ethically wrong AND it produces shitty code with zero innovation and creating technical debt.
It can be useful when an experienced programmer knows how to guide it, although you have to be very intentional or you’ll end up wasting your time cleaning up after it.
That being said I think most people are upset that they’re no longer declaring which parts of code are AI assisted