71–80 of 257 posts
I don't see any issue with this at all. I noticed it the other day and thought it was convenient. The same way I let the agent tag the PRs/commits with its name. I want to know what was used, in fact I wish it would identify the model used. I'm not embarrassed by my LLM usage and I want to provide a full audit trail whenever possible to aid myself in the future. PS: Claude archives old conversations on your computer…
Archives? Or deletes?
I may be missing something, but this is exactly what I want as a default. I want the session links there. I see PRs from my coworkers with session links. I still get to control whether other people can see the session, but I don’t lose it. I don’t get the “unprofessional” argument. This is attribution. Attribution is professional. If you don’t want it, you turn it off or rewrite the commit messages. If you are having…
The specific model used can't be important because theres a new trending one every couple weeks nowadays. The conversation could be wildly out there and have 10+ different iterations of the same thing in it that led to the final product, etc.
It's not like before AI we were asking people to explain every single iteration they went through in their commit body, or to see their entire internal dialogue.
I don't really understand people's hype around needing to see the conversation they had with their AI. As long as the code itself is self-documented and final decisions are relatively well-documented future agents and humans will pick up on it much faster than reading the entire transcripts anyways.
That's not even bringing into the fact that there are people who use multiple models, multiple sessions, multiple harnesses across the same commits/changesets. How do you reconcile those alongside people who could have made human changes in the end?
I may be missing something, but this is exactly what I want as a default. I want the session links there. I see PRs from my coworkers with session links. I still get to control whether other people can see the session, but I don’t lose it. I don’t get the “unprofessional” argument. This is attribution. Attribution is professional. If you don’t want it, you turn it off or rewrite the commit messages. If you are having…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a default that changed silently during an automatic update. Also I frequently use an LLM to commit work that I have written. It is just misleading in that case.
What's misleading? Wouldn't the session corroborate that it was only used for the commit?
I like attribution in principle, but I'd rather it linked to an open format stored in/with the repository rather than their website.
They probably were thinking about how that serves them as an ad, not about transparency, but still.
I say they should go one step further and somehow make it harder/inconvenient to turn it off (big tech is good at this already, so...); or, maybe, hide that option behind extra feature under premium subscription or something.
P.S. The comments are pure gold. They don't like they can't fake authorship and have the audacity to be indignant!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has strong "Sent from my iPhone" vibes. I use many tools to develop software and if my IDE would silently start adding "This commit was created with IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate" I'd find it intrusive and obnoxious, too.
If IDEA recorded my manual edits as events and attached a transcript to my commits I don't think I'd mind. If they just tagged it to put their name in that's different. Knowing which model created the code has more "weight" to it than the editor IMHO which is why I think this is different. Adding the session link is a nice touch.
Allowing tools to insert themselves into the git history only makes sense if you are purely vibecoding with a single model and don't even bother to check and clean it up anymore. Is this truly the default state of software development already? How the times have changed.
Beyond "branding", I don't mind this general direction. There absolutely should be a fool proof undefeatable mechanism that identifies or watermarks code that was completely LLM generated. If you use LLMs, own it.
Hard boundaries there simply don't exist for most workflows, and I suspect if they did, it'd be at the expense of things ~nobody would want to give up.
I don't see any issue with this at all. I noticed it the other day and thought it was convenient. The same way I let the agent tag the PRs/commits with its name. I want to know what was used, in fact I wish it would identify the model used. I'm not embarrassed by my LLM usage and I want to provide a full audit trail whenever possible to aid myself in the future. PS: Claude archives old conversations on your computer…
> Claude archives old conversations Archives? Or deletes?