this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026
648 points (96.2% liked)

Linux Gaming

25204 readers
31 users here now

Discussions and news about gaming on the GNU/Linux family of operating systems (including the Steam Deck). Potentially a $HOME away from home for disgruntled /r/linux_gaming denizens of the redditarian demesne.

This page can be subscribed to via RSS.

Original /r/linux_gaming pengwing by uoou.

No memes/shitposts/low-effort posts, please.

Resources

Help:

Launchers/Game Library Managers:

General:

Discord:

IRC:

Matrix:

Telegram:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
monolalia@lemmy.world
648
Lutris maintainer: "I've removed the Claude co-authorship from the commits a few days ago. So good luck figuring out what's generated and what is not." (github.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by bdonvr@thelemmy.club to c/linux_gaming@lemmy.world
250 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Continued discussion: https://github.com/lutris/lutris/discussions/6530

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Monstrosity@lemmy.today -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Two things, the experiment you are referring to was specifically designed to deceive whereas AI vulnerabilities would just be simple bugs.

Secondly, the security requirements of the Linux Kernel are way more important/stringent than Lutris, which has no special access & is often even further sandboxed if installed via Flatpak.

I just don't see this as an issue until it proves to be one. People are always welcome to fork a "pure" version.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

the experiment you are referring to was specifically designed to deceive whereas AI vulnerabilities would just be simple bugs.

In my original comment, I was specifically referring to OpenClaw. Given that it doesn’t live in a vacuum and can be influenced with prompt injection, it's not safe to assume that whatever bugs it creates aren't specifically designed to deceive.

Secondly, the security requirements of the Linux Kernel are way more important/stringent than Lutris, which has no special access & is often even further sandboxed if installed via Flatpak.

Sure, but that's not the point I was trying to make. You said that I don't trust the guy to audit the code for malicious intent before committing and I gave you a reason why nobody should: if multiple people with decades of experience in a specialized domain can't catch vulnerabilities disguised as subtle bugs, one guy who isn't scrutinizing the changes nearly as hard definitely won't.