It's weird, because they should not consider it as their own, but they should take accountability from it.

Ideally, if I contribute to any codebase, what needs to be judged is the resulting code. Is it up to the project's standards ? Does the maintainer have design objections ?

What tool you use shouldn't matter, be it your IDE or your LLM.

But that also means you should be accountable for it, you shouldn't defend behind "But Claude did this poorly, not me !", I don't care (in a friendly way), just fix the code if you want to contribute.

The big caveat to this is not wanting AI-Generated code for ideological reasons, and well, if you want that you can make your contributors swear they wrote it by themselves in the PR text or whatever.

I'm not really sure how to feel about this, but I stand by my "the code is what matters" line.

Sounds bit like the label "organic (food)" coiuld be applied to hand-written code?

First time I hear about this, it's interesting to have written all of this out.

Now this makes me think of game decompilation projects, which would seem to fall in the same legal area as code that would be generated by something like Malus.

Different code, same end result (binary or api).

We definitely need to know what the legal limits are and should be

Semi-related, someone made basically Malus-for-San-Andreas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBQJYMKmwAs

That's fascinating !

I think it's worth posting as its own submission (if it wasn't already).

i think most game decompilation projects are either openly illegal or operate on "provide your own binary" and build automatic tooling around it

Yes, because we have clear precedent that distributing Art (the assets) is illegal by current copyright law.

But do we have precedent (in any country) that distributing different source code that compiles to the exact same binary is illegal ?

While not directly related to GP, I would guess that a codebase developped with a coding agent (I assume Claude code is used to work on itself) would benefit from a stricter type system (one important point of Rust)

TypeScript is typed.. It's in the name ?

Yes, but if you put type strictness on a line, Rust would be further along I think.

Not to say that Typescript is bad or anything, but I would like to see data on my gut feeling that "stricter languages would make coding agents work better"

This is actually a curious one, I think you might have that gut feeling towards the compiler/transpiler ?

> Yes, but if you put type strictness on a line, Rust would be further along I think.

There are huge differences between build times, as we know, Rust likes to compile with effort, by design, it's important for the compiler to navigate all the nuances. Typescript with bun for example, can run a bit faster. Is the compiler making you think it's more 'type safe' ?

It's that Rust has more rules that allo you to use it's type system to constrain your logic.

Things like borrowing and ownership, having an affine type system, the GADTs, it's more tools in your toolbox to constrain your problem space.

Time to ask if the contributor know what a Capybara is as a new Turing test

Yes people are overthinking.

Actually having a cross-distro way to specify an age group for parental control purposes would be very useful.

If the law starts to change and be about surveillance (which it isn't about _right now_) then distro maintainers will just not implement that.

> I thought if you used the exact input and seed with the temperature set to 0 you would get the same output.

I think they can also be differences on different hardware, and also usually temperature is set higher than zero because it produces more "useful/interesting" outputs

This is similar :

https://www.vice.com/en/article/musicians-algorithmically-ge...

Two musicians generated every possible melody within an octave, and published them as creative Commons Zero.

I never heard about this again though.

It's not a generic footer, it's their reply directly to their tweet about the incident.

I agree with the person you are replying to, writing a tweet like :

"How I misused AI and caused an outage"

and replying to this very tweet saying

"Here's a blog where I write insights about AI"

Obviously do not make me want to read the blog.

Yeah,

I'm working on an indie game project and just got frustrated with Unity, I'm porting everything over to Godot.

I even learned about using Kotlin with Godot today [0] and I am really hopeful this is stable (it seems so), because I favor a more functional style of programming and C# ends up making everything 5 times more verbose than Kotlin.

[0] https://godot-kotl.in/en/stable/

I do wonder whether Kotlin is sufficiently different from C# to make it worth developing in Godot in a non-standard way.

For me, it does.

I find Kotlin way easier to read back than C#, and for the cases where I would have reached for GDScript for its simplicity, I can use Kotlin and have still a lot of simplicity, while also having type-safety.

> I favor a more functional style of programming and C# ends up making everything 5 times more verbose than Kotlin.

As if you can't program C# functional style.

> As if you can't program C# functional style.

This, I was really impressed recently when I met a C# dev who was also a programmer (as opposed to your standard C# SaaS dev who just copy pasted from the framework docs and stack overflow and was fully automated by Claude in 2025) and he showed me how nice the language has gotten since I last used it over a decade ago when it was just Microslop Java. They've really put in work and it has a lot of great functional constructs now.

Sorry, I mean that writing functional code in C# is way more verbose than in Kotlin.

C# is already more verbose because it lacks things like union types (and so you need to have a fallback branch in every switch) and for example everything needs to be nested in a class.

Then you also have the fact that there is no "val" keyword (which makes things clearer imo) and the fact that it's generics type inferencing is only based on method arguments, which really adds a lot of noise to almost all generic functions.

I was using LanguageExt [0] in C# and I am now using Arrow [1] in Kotlin, and while LanguageExt is really nice for addressing some C# shortcomings, for me this is night and day.

[0] https://github.com/louthy/language-ext

[1] https://arrow-kt.io/

Well, I'll surely be buying a Motorola device when GrapheneOS support lands.

I've been running on several half-working recent android ports to my Xiaomi Mi 9t for many years now.

If I can get a modern phone, modern android, my privacy preserved and a hackable phone (to the extent an unlockable bootloader allows, which isn't a given nowadays, I especially hate how Xiaomi does it), I'm 100% sold.

We'll see when it comes out I guess!