Skip to main content


Lutris now being built with Claude AI, developer decides to hide it after backlash gamingonlinux.com/2026/03/lutrโ€ฆ

#Lutris #AI #OpenSource #Linux

in reply to Liam @ GamingOnLinux ๐Ÿง๐ŸŽฎ

I only learned of this a few hours ago and am gutted. Oh well, found a project for this weekend
in reply to Liam @ GamingOnLinux ๐Ÿง๐ŸŽฎ

sure LLMs can write code, but it's not better than the source used and the issue is that nowadays there is already a lot of code that has been generated by even older versions of LLMs, which will affect newer LLMs.

Sure I do see use of the LLMs like for figuring out the variables needed to use with a function, give some idea how to do somethings so you don't have to spend a half day to figure it out from some LLM generated source...

But let it really code, nah... we really need to get a working AI first before that will be innovative and able to think of consequences of the code

and sure the issue with license too, the code the LLM has been trained with will have a large range of different licenses, the code it borrows may have a lot different license than what the program you write has, and if there is some closed source included then wow...

This entry was edited (3 days ago)
in reply to Liam @ GamingOnLinux ๐Ÿง๐ŸŽฎ

Better use Local LLM's and only use Training Data from legal licenses. Actually CC0, MIT or BSD Licenses could be compatible with legally AI training i guess. We need better Licensing on AI Training Data.
in reply to Liam @ GamingOnLinux ๐Ÿง๐ŸŽฎ

Your stated opinion in the piece, stating "Every extra person using all these AI tools is only adding to the issue." and "Not just that but copyright becomes an issue. Who actually owns the generated code? And now it's being hidden, how can anyone tell? Can you even truly claim it's open source when it's using AI generated code?" belies an ignorance of software development and an unhelpful bias of reporting. Open source projects don't need idiots swarming them.
in reply to Jigen

@JigenD

1) Well, more people using it is a fact that they will need to keep expanding. Saying otherwise is just ignorant.

2) Copyright is an issue. Again, you must be insanely ignorant if you don't think it is. The US even just struck down copyright for AI generated works. Look it up.

Perhaps get informed before making stupid replies at me?

in reply to Liam @ GamingOnLinux ๐Ÿง๐ŸŽฎ

I can guarantee I am more informed on all of these matters than you.

So you just want to post biased, uninformed slop for some kind of crusade then got it.

But know that you're actively hurting open source development by supporting people abusing GitHub to file false reports, wasting hard working developers' time who are doing it FOR FREE, only because you're worried about 'copyright'. Great job, yeah great, Ayn Rand.

in reply to Liam @ GamingOnLinux ๐Ÿง๐ŸŽฎ

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
in reply to Liam @ GamingOnLinux ๐Ÿง๐ŸŽฎ

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 โ€“ 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...
in reply to Liam @ GamingOnLinux ๐Ÿง๐ŸŽฎ

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.

in reply to Liam @ GamingOnLinux ๐Ÿง๐ŸŽฎ

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.

in reply to Liam @ GamingOnLinux ๐Ÿง๐ŸŽฎ

I used to recommend Lutris for people trying to move to Linux who play games. I guess I can't anymore.
in reply to Liam @ GamingOnLinux ๐Ÿง๐ŸŽฎ

I can't even use half of the reason I initially started using Lutris because ability to connect to your itch account and download itch games has been broken for months but sure
in reply to Liam @ GamingOnLinux ๐Ÿง๐ŸŽฎ

interesting article. I mostly agree with the Lutris authors comments. We use LLMs at our company and I also know many friends who do it at their daily work too.

I personally review every line of code I push and will change it if it is not up to **my** standards. So for the same reasons I wouldn't add an attribution on my commits to my code editor which generally contains a lot of tools which will help rewrite code, I don't do it for LLM generated code. It's not really "hiding"

in reply to Liam @ GamingOnLinux ๐Ÿง๐ŸŽฎ

I think using AI to speed up development is acceptable, especially when the code undergoes thorough review. The main concern here isnโ€™t the use of AI itself, but the removal of Claudeโ€™s co-authorship. Keeping the co-authorship would help future developers spot which parts of the code might need extra fact-checking during bug fixes or maintenance.
in reply to Liam @ GamingOnLinux ๐Ÿง๐ŸŽฎ

great job on this article, what you emphasized and the questions you chose to point out make it less a drama than a real opportunity to think about it from (sometimes depressed) devs... (even though I will stop using lutris anyway..)

Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.

โ‡ง