If people don't like that project maintainers start using AI tools to develop the project, they should start contrinuting themselves.

The main reason the Lutris maintainer started using it, was because of depression, stress and burnout. All valid reasons, in my book, to start using such tools.

Hiding the commits as an emotional reaction to the negative feedback he got for it, is another thing. It should be transparent. Trust has been broken because of this part.

I'm trying to be open to this idea of yours, but I don't understand why one would use AI tools instead of simply not working on the project and taking a break.

If the users aren't paying, they're not entitled to updates and fixes - they get them when the developer has the time and willingness. AI tools actively create worse code that will make future work harder.

Just as in almost all other cross-posts, someone missing the point.

And what point is that?

That they used AI for coding is not great, but responding by saying they simply won’t declare what is AI and what is not, is just childish.

I think all the backlash they are facing is 99% directed at their tone-deaf response.

This was also my point. Hiding what was AI made, just because people didn't like it, is not the way to do it.

I’m trying to be open to this idea of yours, but I don’t understand why one would use AI tools instead of simply not working on the project and taking a break.

Maybe they feel obligated to continue, because it became such a popular project. They likely don't want to let people down by dropping the project entirely.

AI tools actively create worse code that will make future work harder.

Sure, but they are an experienced developer that reviews the code before it gets committed (as I understood it).

To quote Doctorow:

Now we come to the third and final novel AI psychosis, the critics' psychosis, that AI is an abnormally terrible technology. This is a species of "criti-hype," which is when critics repeat the hyped-up claims of the companies they're targeting, but as criticism

(read the whole post, of course)

https://pluralistic.net/2026/03/12/normal-technology/#bubble-exceptionalism

I think a good example will be whether the vim fork from "pre-LLM contributions" will become more popular, or not. https://codeberg.org/NerdNextDoor/evi

He’s the guy who would hide his zombie bite

They likely don't want to let people down by dropping the project entirely.

I wouldn't assume a person who actively taunts their critics with hidden AI contributions in their code would give any amount of shit what the community thinks, actually. Very clear sign of "I do what I want to, anyone who disagrees can get bent". Clearly doesn't mind letting down the majority with AI slop.

Could an open source project go back and remove and replace all the work of one contributor?