Lutris now being built with Claude AI, developer decides to hide it after backlash https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2026/03/lutris-now-being-built-with-claude-ai-developer-decides-to-hide-it-after-backlash/

[kjv@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@james_baker @aho What are the alternatives ? (Genuine question, not trying to be rude)

Are they listed in the video ? (not home currently, so couldn't watch)

[soskopp@mastodon.online]

@gamingonlinux
"I use high quality tools"

A chat bot isn't a tool. It's a toy.

[konim96@mastodon.social]

@gamingonlinux The main issue I have with this is them hiding which parts are AI generated. Open-source should always have that clearly labelled, as anything AI generated really

[_ryekdarkener_@mastodon.social]

@gamingonlinux

Could be much worse. At least they HAVE one real existing developer.;)

[lookwhatthecatdraggedin@mastodon.social]

@gamingonlinux I don't use Lutris since all of my games are on Steam, but now I will for sure never use Lutris, ever

[ray_of_sunlight@mastodon.social]

@gamingonlinux You gotta be shitting me...

[ohir@social.vivaldi.net]

@gamingonlinux
It would be OK if instead of code generated once someone ai-happy committed their prompt. Then the build pipeline can generate the same code using some future #siliconiac sidekick – from this preserved prompt. No need to look and tinker as it for decades to come should just compile and link. As the side effect of above us all crazy advocates of repeatable builds, rigid maintenance preplanners, and security paranoics will be free to mount our old unicorns and trot into oblivion...

[feyter@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@gamingonlinux is lutris really all managed by one single Dev alone?

Actually I will not blame a solo Dev for deciding to use AI on a personal project, especially if the alternative would be that lutis would stop being maintained.

An overworked Dev can make just as many mistakes, as a good AI can...

So perhaps we should all ask first, what we could do to convince the Dev that AI is not needed for this project.

[seasonschange@retro.pizza]

@feyter @gamingonlinux Yeah, I mean if this isn’t even their full time gig, I can’t say I blame them.

[mackaj@mastodon.me.uk]

@gamingonlinux

I see lots of people trashing the Lutris creator in replies on that link. Despite clearly saying he turned to AI to help with the backlog he faced, not one person has offered to step in and help, and give him an alternative.

It's a typical self entitled reaction by some users to free software development.

[yora@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@gamingonlinux AI once, dead forever.

[gabriel@mastodon.samfira.com]

@mackaj @gamingonlinux

This. Many times, this!

[yora@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@mackaj @gamingonlinux If it can't be done without AI, it should not be done at all.
Better no software than AI garbage.

[jackemled@furry.engineer]

@gamingonlinux I used to recommend Lutris for people trying to move to Linux who play games. I guess I can't anymore.

[yora@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@kjv I never got Lutris to work on several computers and Linux distros.
I started using Heroic recently, and that went flawless right away.

[yoasif@mastodon.social]

@mackaj @gamingonlinux The alternative is obvious. A fork with the code as PD, since the code can no longer be GPL.

[yoasif@mastodon.social]

@james_baker @gunther @gamingonlinux We care about the license the code is under, because that is an open source license - the same one being violated by the AI generated commits.

[yoasif@mastodon.social]

@Chris2000SP @gamingonlinux Even if the training data was untainted, the AI generated code cannot be GPLed, because it was not generated by a human.

[becomethewaifu@tech.lgbt]

@gamingonlinux I suspect that they may not realize that by publicly admitting to hiding the attribution, they likely just forfeited their copyright to any changes made by them after they first started using "AI", at least here in the US. "AI" generated code cannot claim a copyright under current US law, and the current standing interpretation (all the way up to "supreme court refused to hear it", so somewhat binding) is that when the human-written portions are not clearly marked, they can't grant copyright to them, so the entire work is thus public domain as it's impossible to tell what can be copyrighted.

Though with something as "distributed" as a git repo, commits from anyone that doesn't use AI (or were made before the dumbass in question completely lost it) would likely still have copyright, thus the license isn't entirely void. Just that the maintainer has quite solidly shot their foot off if they ever want to enforce the license here in the US.

[chris2000sp@social.anoxinon.de]

@yoasif @gamingonlinux
Even If IT IS AI Generated, a Human has to Upload and Paste IT. Also a Human Trigger the Exekution of a Program and Not the AI. The Power to execute still lies with humans. The Human has the responsibility to that anyway.