Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Copilot edited an ad into my PR

notes.zachmanson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 704 posts

Re: Copilot edited an ad into my PR

#421

Post by surgical_fire »

m132 wrote: post #412

I remember open-source projects announcing their intent to leave GitHub in 2018, as it was being acquired by Microsoft. I was thinking to myself back then: "It's really just a free Git hosting service, and Git was designed to be decentralized at its very core. They don't own anything, only provide the storage and bandwidth. How are they even going to enshittify this?". 8 years later, this is where we are. I'm honestl…

This is nothing.

I would bet that soon it will inject ads within the code as comments.

Imagine you are reading the code of a class. `LargeFileHandler`. And within the code they inject a comment with an ad for penis enlargement.

The possibilities are limitless.

Re: Copilot edited an ad into my PR

#422

Post by fraywing »

As the "agent web" progresses, how will advertisers actually get access to human eyeballs?

Will our agents just be proxies for garbage like injected marketing prompts?

I feel like this is going to be an existential moment for advertising that ultimately will lead to intrusive opportunities like this.

Re: Copilot edited an ad into my PR

#424

Post by corndoge »

nemomarx wrote: post #398
smrtinsert wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you review the code then committing as yourself makes perfect sense to me

If you review a juniors code, do you commit it under your name?

A junior is a person. A tool is a tool. Do you credit your text editor with authorship?

Re: Copilot edited an ad into my PR

#427

Post by sheept »

yarn_ wrote: post #393
kstenerud wrote: post #365

The ads are annoying, and I'm glad Microsoft will stop doing it. One thing I do like, however, is how agents add themselves as co-authors in commit messages. Having a signal for which commits are by hand and which are by agent is very useful, both for you and in aggregate (to see how well you are wielding AI, and the quality of the code being generated). Even when I edit the commit message, I still leave in the Claud…

I don't quite see the benefit of this, personally. Whoever is submitting the code is still responsible for it, why would the reviewer care if you wrote it with your fingers or if an LLM wrote (parts of) it? The quality+understanding bar shouldn't change just because "oh idk claude wrote this part". You don't get extra leeway just because you saved your own time writing the code - that fact doesn't benefit me/the proj…

As a reviewer, I do care. Sure, people should be reviewing Claude-generated code, but they aren't scrutinizing it.

Claude-generated code is sufficient—it works, it's decent quality—but it still isn't the same as human written code. It's just minor things, like redundant comments that waste context down the road, tests that don't test what they claim to test, or React components that reimplement everything from scratch because Claude isn't aware of existing component libraries' documentation.

But more importantly, I expect humans to be able to stand by their code, and at times defend against my review. But today's agents continue to sycophantically treat review comments like prompts. I once jokingly commented on a line using a \u escape sequence to encode an em dash, how LLMs would do anything to sneak them in, and the LLM proceeded to replace all — with --. Plus, agents do not benefit from general coding advice in reviews.

Ultimately, at least with today's Claude, I would change my review style for a human vs an agent.

Re: Copilot edited an ad into my PR

#428

Post by waisbrot »

yarn_ wrote: post #410
QuantumNomad_ wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> […] and also the way Claude injects itself as a co-author. > Seeing them is an easy signal to recognize work that was submitted by someone so lazy they couldn’t even edit the commit message. You can see the vibe coded PRs right away. I was doing the opposite when using ChatGPT. Specifically manually setting the git commit author as ChatGPT complete with model used, and setting myself as committer. That way I (and e…

"Why would I commit something written by AI with myself as author?" Because you're the one who decided to take responsibility for it, and actually choose to PR it in its ultimate form. What utility do the reviews/maintainers get from you marking whats written by you vs. chatgpt? Other than your ability to scapegoat the LLM? The only thing that actually affects me (the hypothetical reviewer) and the project is the qua…

Claude adds "Co-authored by" attribution for itself when committing, so you can see the human author and also the bot.

I think this is a good balance, because if you don't care about the bot you still see the human author. And if you do care (for example, I'd like to be able to review commits and see which were substantially bot-written and which were mostly human) then it's also easy.

Re: Copilot edited an ad into my PR

#429

Post by corndoge »

Krssst wrote: post #417
yarn_ wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why would I commit something written by AI with myself as author?" Because you're the one who decided to take responsibility for it, and actually choose to PR it in its ultimate form. What utility do the reviews/maintainers get from you marking whats written by you vs. chatgpt? Other than your ability to scapegoat the LLM? The only thing that actually affects me (the hypothetical reviewer) and the project is the qua…

As someone mostly outside of the vibe coding stuff, I can see the benefit in having both the model and the author information. Model information for traceability and possibly future analysis/statistics, and author to know who is taking responsibility for the changes (and, thus, has deeply reviewed and understood them). As long as those two information are present in the commit, I guess which commit field should hold…

Yeah, nothing wrong with keeping the metadata - but "Authored-by" is both credit and an attestation of responsibility. I think people just haven't thought about it too much and see it mostly as credit and less as responsibility.
Post reply on HN