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.
If you truly believe AI is so great, own it. Trying to hide it is not a good look. It shows that they know it's something to be ashamed of.
Beyond that, I actually consider this to be a violation of open source, if not in letter, at least in spirit. Setting aside the debate about inclusion of LLM-generated code in open source software, I see the obfuscation of the source of that code to be robbing me of my fundamental freedom to truly study the code. It also robs me of my choice to decide where and when I interact with AI in my life.
Going further, I would love to see FSOSS projects adopt the idea that its not enough to cite what code is LLM-generated, but that citations should include the tool used, the model, and the prompt as well.
Unfortunately, this move by Lutris forces me to assume all code in Lutris is vibe-coded from this point forward, and that Lutris itself is no longer open source software.
They know people spit slop slop slop slop like a thirsty dog. Every public defense is protesting too much, every quiet effort is conscience of guilt. The nature of bad faith is that there is no right answer.
We each need private vigilance against participating in public harassment campaigns. Is there any reason these people's behavior changed, or that they were keeping things quiet, besides the fear of dealing with you?