Live data from Hacker News

Copilot edited an ad into my PR

notes.zachmanson.com

541–550 of 704 posts

Re: Copilot edited an ad into my PR

#541
post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not really ads, it’s more like "Sent from my iPhone"-style sentences at the end of PR texts.

I agree. It's not an advertisement, it's simply a piece of information about your particular choice of technology. -------------- Sent from HackerNews Supreme™ - the best way to browse the Y Combinator Hacker News. Now on macOS, Windows, Linux, Android, iOS, and SONY BRAVIA Smart TV. Prices starting at €13.99 per month, billed yearly. https://hacker-news-supreme.io

I'm trying to sign up but it won't resolve the DNS.

Re: Copilot edited an ad into my PR

#542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. “Authored by” - and authorship in general - says who did the work. Not who signed off on the work. Reviewed-by me, authored by Claude feels most correct.

To me, Claude is not a who, it's an it. Before AI, did you credit your code completion engine for the portions of code it completed? Same thing

Re: Copilot edited an ad into my PR

#543
post #457
post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this one? https://copilot.microsoft.com/

Maybe, but Microsoft has a lot of products which they branded Copilot. Pretty sure that was his point.

Microsoft loves to do this with brand names -- a friend who's still there said they stopped counting at 30 different "Defender for ______" products.

Re: Copilot edited an ad into my PR

#544
post #354

Tim from the Copilot coding agent team here. We've now disabled these tips in pull requests created by or touched by Copilot, so you won't see this happen again for future PRs. We've been including product tips in PRs created by Copilot coding agent. The goal was to help developers learn new ways to use the agent in their workflow. But hearing the feedback here, and on reflection, this was the wrong judgement call. W…

> We've now disabled these tips in pull requests created by or touched by Copilot, so you won't see this happen again for future PRs. It's appreciated, but these weren't tips, these were ads. Tips are "Save time with keyboard shortcuts" or "Check out the latest features under 'Whats New' in the help menu!" When you name other products, that's an ad.

That doesn't really make sense. So it's an ad for raycast? But raycast said they didn't know about it. To me the explanation makes perfect sense. "You can use this tool with raycast" seems like a very reasonable tip.

Re: Copilot edited an ad into my PR

#545
post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not really ads, it’s more like "Sent from my iPhone"-style sentences at the end of PR texts.

the difference is "sent from my iPhone" is on YOUR outgoing email. you opted into that default. this is copilot editing someone else's PR description with promotional text for third party tools. that's not a signature, that's injection. imagine if gcc started appending "compiled with gcc, try our new optimization flags" to your README every time you built a project.

Disagreed. The default in iOS is to inject. The opt out procedure is to change your signature.

Re: Copilot edited an ad into my PR

#546
post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to you it’s all false. I don’t agree, and it certainly shouldn’t just be taken as a given. For instance, I would want any AI generated video showing real people to have a disclaimer. Same way we have disclaimers when tv ads note if the people are actors or not with testimonials and the like. That is not only not false, but is actually a useful signal that helps present overly deceptive practices.

I don't see what the "deceptive practices" would be though - you can just look at the code being submitted, there isn't really the same background truth involved as with "did the thing in this video actually happen?" "do these commercial people actually think this?" If I have a block of human code and an identical block of llm code then whats the difference? Especially given that in reality it is trivial to obfuscate…

It tells you what average quality to expect, and to look out for beginner-level mistakes and straight up lying accompanied with fine bits of code. Not sure why you wouldn't want that context.

Re: Copilot edited an ad into my PR

#547

I actually love these ads 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 think we should continue encouraging AI-generated PRs to label themselves, honestly. I’m not against AI coding tools, but I would like to know when someone is tryin…

It's not a self-own, it's honest disclosure. It's unethical (if not outright fraudulent) to publish LLM work as if it were your own. Claude setting itself as coauthor is a good way to address this problem, and it doing so by default is a very good thing.

Should Word set itself as my coauthor when it autocompletes some sentences for me? If I use Claude/Word to write something, then I am the only author, since Claude/Word is not a person, and Claude/Word did nothing without my direction. It's not unethical to not disclose the tools I use to produce my work. They're just tools, smdh.

Re: Copilot edited an ad into my PR

#548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a self-own, it's honest disclosure. It's unethical (if not outright fraudulent) to publish LLM work as if it were your own. Claude setting itself as coauthor is a good way to address this problem, and it doing so by default is a very good thing.

> It's unethical (if not outright fraudulent) to publish LLM work as if it were your own. I disagree on that. It's really a gray area. If it's some lazy vibecoded shit, I think what you say totally applies. If the human did the thinking, gave the agent detailed instructions, and/or carefully reviewed the output, then I don't think it's so clear cut. And full disclosure, I'm reacting more to copilot here, which lists…

Telling someone you did something that you actually didn't do isn't a gray area, it's a lie.

Using AI tools to code and then hiding that is unethical imo.

Re: Copilot edited an ad into my PR

#549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. “Authored by” - and authorship in general - says who did the work. Not who signed off on the work. Reviewed-by me, authored by Claude feels most correct.

To me, Claude is not a who, it's an it. Before AI, did you credit your code completion engine for the portions of code it completed? Same thing

This mirrors my thoughts.

Re: Copilot edited an ad into my PR

#550

I actually love these ads 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 think we should continue encouraging AI-generated PRs to label themselves, honestly. I’m not against AI coding tools, but I would like to know when someone is tryin…

Get a grip with reality man, if you don’t leverage LLMs in your workflow, you are at an disadvantage
Post reply on HN