A user asked on the official Lutris GitHub two weeks ago "is lutris slop now" and noted an increasing amount of "LLM generated commits". To which the Lutris creator replied:

It's only slop if you don't know what you're doing and/or are using low quality tools. But I have over 30 years of programming experience and use the best tool currently available. It was tremendously helpful in helping me catch up with everything I wasn't able to do last year because of health issues / depression.

There are massive issues with AI tech, but those are caused by our current capitalist culture, not the tools themselves. In many ways, it couldn't have been implemented in a worse way but it was AI that bought all the RAM, it was OpenAI. It was not AI that stole copyrighted content, it was Facebook. It wasn't AI that laid off thousands of employees, it's deluded executives who don't understand that this tool is an augmentation, not a replacement for humans.

I'm not a big fan of having to pay a monthly sub to Anthropic, I don't like depending on cloud services. But a few months ago (and I was pretty much at my lowest back then, barely able to do anything), I realized that this stuff was starting to do a competent job and was very valuable. And at least I'm not paying Google, Facebook, OpenAI or some company that cooperates with the US army.

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. Whether or not I use Claude is not going to change society, this requires changes at a deeper level, and we all know that nothing is going to improve with the current US administration.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 47 points 6 months ago (4 children)

It's still made by the slop machine, the same one that could only be created by stealing every human made artwork that's ever been published. (And this is not "just one company", every LLM has this issue.)

Not only that, the companies building massive datacenters are taking valuable resources from people just trying to live.

If the developer isn't able to keep up, they should look for (co-)maintainers. Not turn to the greedy megacorps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    A few years ago we were all arguing about how copyright is unfair to society and should be abolished.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Sure, but these same companies will drag you to court and rake you over the coals if you infringe on their copyrights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Copyright is what makes the GPL license enforceable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The GPL license only exists because copyright fucked over the public contract that it promised to society: Copyrights are temporary and will be given back to public domain. Instead, shitheads like Mark Twain and Disney extended copyright to practically forever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    I don't understand your position here. If we went back to a more reasonable 7 or 14 year copyright term, how would that obviate the need for a license like the GPL, which permits instant use of code provided you share-alike? Those shorter copyright lengths would be pretty reasonable for books or movies, but would still suck for tech.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    We would be faaaaaar less hostile towards copyrights if we had a regular source of RECENT public domain coming out every year.

    I'm not saying that it would make GPL or OSS licenses useless. I'm just saying that the motivation and need for those licenses are because we don't live in a society where freely available media and data are much more commonplace.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    Licenses only matter if you care about copyright. I'd much rather just appropriate whatever I want, whenever I want, for whatever I want. Copyright is capitalist nonsense and I just don't respect notions of who "owns" what. You won't need the GPL if you abolish the concept of intellectual property entirely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    We weren't all saying copyright altogether was unfair. In fact i think most of us have always said copyright law should exist, just that it shouldn't be like 'lifetime of the creator plus another 75 years after their death'. Copyright should be closer to how it was when the law was first started, which is something like 20 years.

    (And personally imo there should also be some nuanced exceptions too.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    If the developer isn't able to keep up, they should look for (co-)maintainers.

    Same energy as "Just go on Twitter and ask for free voice actors," a la Vivziepop. A lot of people think this kind of shit is super easy, but realistically, it's nearly impossible to get people to dedicate that kind of effort to something that can never be more than a money/time sink.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    I was under the impression that FOSS developers do it for the love of the game and not for monetary compensation. They're literally putting the software out for free even though they don't need to. They are going to be making this shit regardless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    That is what they are technically doing but they often don't always consider the consequences and often react poorly when they realize that an Amazon (it whatever) comes along and contributes nothing and monetizes their work while dumping the support and maintenance on them.

    That is the name of the game though if you use an MIT license.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Absolutely true, but there's one clear and obvious way; drop support for the project yourself.

    If a FOSS project is archived/unmaintained, for a large enough project, someone else will pick up where the original left off.

    FOSS maintainers don't owe anyone anything. What some developers do is amazing and I want them to keep developing and maintaining their projects, but I don't fault them for quitting if they do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago*

    XKCD, of course

    If a FOSS project is archived/unmaintained, for a large enough project, someone else will pick up where the original left off.

    No, they won't. This line of thinking is how we got the above.

    Their line of work is thankless, and nobody wants to do a fucking thankless job, especially when the last maintainer was given a bunch of shit for it.

  • source
  • parent