Comment on Lutris now being built with Claude AI, developer decides to hide it after backlash
Captain_Stupid@lemmy.world 1 day ago
To be honest I don’t give a shit if a dev uses AI or not. As long as the code does what it is suppost to. In my personal experience AI, while still not anywhere near to capabilitys of a decent dev, can sometimes find and fix errors that I would have missed.
I use AI to look at my git diffs before I push them up. I use a local LLM and specifically instruct it to look for typos, left over debug prints, or stupid logic.
It’s caught quite a few stupid things that I’m apparently blind to and my coworker appreciates it.
That’s not to say I’d sit back and let it write whole features, pushing it right to master after a short skim… Like someone else I know has started doing. But it can absolutely have a useful purpose.
Or at least create boilerplate, test cases, etc.
The ai to do tests and boilerplate was like Avinor 3 months ago. Now just genuinely oneshots complex implementations
I know, as long as you don’t want scalability, maintainabiliy, reliability or security.
RagingRobot@lemmy.world 1 day ago
When we write code we use a compiler to translate it into other code that the computer can understand. Now we tell AI to write code that is then compiled into other code that the computer can understand.
It seems very similar at the end of the day. The problem is it makes the process easier. That’s what everyone is so upset about. And that’s only an issue because we don’t feel special anymore. It sucks but I’m sure it will pass. Even if it takes a generation
Captain_Stupid@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I must disagree with you here. Telling the compiler what to do is not like prompting an LLM. I see writing code as a form of art and a big part of that is understanding the logic behind the program and the creating process. Imagine it like painting a picture. The artist/dev will undergo all the stages of drawing/coding the vision will change in the process and the outcome might be different then what was originally anticipated.
This pipeline of creating gives the project usually a better result. One could say it gives the project more soul.
With AI you are no longer the artist you are the manager requesting the result and since AI does not undergo this process of creativity the result is a soulless husk. At best only what you asked for but nothing more.
If people where complaining about AI because of its ease of use the same people would be complaining about pythons approach of humanspeech-like-code. (Not saying that there are no people that do so)
jumjummy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
So with this logic are you also not an artist if you use tools like Photoshop? Do you need to write with pen and paper?
Is writing code in any language other than assembly also cheating?
crystrail@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
I don’t know why this reply is being downvoted
Captain_Stupid@lemmy.world 1 day ago
No of course not. Die you even finish reading my comment? I thought made it clear that the ease of use is not the issue. The lack of creativity is. Using Photoshop still requires you to think about what you want and how to get there. AI just gives you the output. There is no creativity involved in prompting.
When the first drawing tablets came out people loved them. Almost no one was the impression that it was “cheating”. Even with the use of AI you can still make creative projects but the creativity comes from you. Vibecoding or using image-gen does not involve creative thought.
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
It’s similar, but it’s not the same thing.
Anyone can have an AI “write code”, but ultimately, you’re still responsible for the output of the AI and ensuring that the end result is good. If you are a competent developer, you know things like testing, storage, security and safety (especially when dealing with sensitive data like user data), backups, monitoring, etc along with understanding each line of code. AI will never be perfect because humans aren’t perfect either, AI requires code review just like humans require code review. If you aren’t a programmer, you won’t be able to review the code AI writes, and mistakes will be missed because humans make mistakes too. I don’t see that ever changing because no software is perfect, there will always be bugs no matter what (once the software is complex/sophisticated enough).
RagingRobot@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I never said anything about not reviewing the code. You still need to review it and test it and all that. But using a tool to generate the code isn’t the end of the world. It’s just the next iteration of how we tell computers what to do. Saying no ai code seems like a recipe for failure.