So when the news circulated recently that the Lutris developer was using Claude to help write the code (and the angry posts/articles appeared) I figured I’d reach out to Mathieu to hear his side of things.

I chatted to him a little, asking for his side of the story. He goes into some depth on how he uses it as part of his work-flow, the transparency in open-source projects in general, licensing and ownership of code that A.I. writes, safety and so on. Plenty of answers from Lutris, if you’re curious on the topic. As ever, you can find the link here:

https://gardinerbryant.com/mathieu-comandon-explains-his-use-of-ai-in-lutris-development/

  • Zedstrian@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    47·
    12 hours ago

    Also, there is enough open source code available that I would hope Anthropic doesn’t feel the need to train their models on potentially litigious code base.

    The problem with this statement is twofold. Firstly, it is unrealistic to assume that leading AI companies are staying entirely above board in terms of code licensing. With how widespread AI is, this makes it all the harder for developers to enforce their licenses when many developers inevitably violate their terms without knowing.

    Even if that code is open source, licensing terms typically require attribution that an AI is unlikely to provide for every segment of code cobbled together. When the developers that had their code taken and reused are unable to know who reused it, it is disingenuous to work under a ‘take first, ask later (if found out)’ mentality.