131–140 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Imagine a human co-author on a work. "Written with a co-author" would not be sufficient attribution.
A clanker isn’t a human it’s a tool. I don’t write “Coauthored by VSCode” when I use find and replace.
Is AI responsible for the committed code? Should AI be blamed when services go down due to the change? The answer is absolutely not - the developer is responsible whether the code was AI assisted or not, and the dev's name should be attached to it just like any change. The OP is right: these are ads, plain and simple, and it's a dark pattern for these companies to have attribution enabled by default
"Sent from my iPhone" But of course, owning an iPhone early on was seen as prestigious. Using an LLM is... not? Many people really don't want the world to know. For blogs in particular, the urge to have an LLM generate the entire thing and then post it under your name seems to be really difficult to resist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it absolutely is advertising, you can even call it a growth hack if you want to feel good about it co-authorship implies ability to hold author rights, which afaik an algorithm can't do. are folks adding speakeasy/stainless co-authorship lines to their commits? should i add alembic as a co-author after making some changes to the database schema? Co-authored-by: buf generate
If co-authorship implies holding rights, then what gives the "primary author" who just prompted for the code the right to add their own name?
assume no deep learning, of any kind is involved: you write a program, you are the author, right? you compile the code, are you still the author? do you have to attribute co-authorship to gcc/llvm/oracle?
i think not, you are still the author, same as when anyone else uses an llm to write code.
ianal
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s Apples to Oranges. Me saying “Co-authored by Joe Smith” gives the human, Joe Smith, possible exposure and definite credit. “Co-authored by Copilot” gives a multi billion dollar corp free advertising. I don’t care about them. I do care about Joe though.
Knowing it was Copilot vs Claude vs ChatGPT makes a difference just like knowing it was Joe Smith vs John Doe
How could it possibly be product placement? It's got electrolytes!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s Apples to Oranges. Me saying “Co-authored by Joe Smith” gives the human, Joe Smith, possible exposure and definite credit. “Co-authored by Copilot” gives a multi billion dollar corp free advertising. I don’t care about them. I do care about Joe though.
Knowing it was Copilot vs Claude vs ChatGPT makes a difference just like knowing it was Joe Smith vs John Doe
In the case of Claude or others, it is not just an advertisement, it's the weird shape the industry is spinning LLM-assisted-coding as a "co-author" relationship where it should be thought of more like a user-using-a-tool relationship. When you make a design with Photoshop or InDesign, it's not "co-designed by Photoshop", it's just a tool and you used the filters it provides. It is slightly weird that people accepted…
Would you consider the .psd and .indd file extensions to be advertising? It's important to know what program the file came from so you can open it again, because MS Paint and Photoshop produce different files. Similarly, it's important to know whether and which LLM was used, because while all IDEs find and replace the same, each LLM generates code differently from each other and from humans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Sent from my iPhone" But of course, owning an iPhone early on was seen as prestigious. Using an LLM is... not? Many people really don't want the world to know. For blogs in particular, the urge to have an LLM generate the entire thing and then post it under your name seems to be really difficult to resist.
Nice deflection there, why can’t both things be bad?
This is the second or third HN post I'm seeing this month along the lines of "how dare AI companies flag my code as AI-generated". I just don't remember similar complaints about the iPhone footer. Not many HNers complain about The North Face putting the text "The North Face" on their hoodies either. Or Honda putting their logo on the car.
The reasons for this difference are interesting. The fact that companies put their logos / brands on stuff is a lot less interesting to me. You can call it bad, but again, why is this instance worse?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A clanker isn’t a human it’s a tool. I don’t write “Coauthored by VSCode” when I use find and replace.
I know this is a bit off tangent - but can you please convey that point to every damned dev/team that ends up with a freaking ".vscode" directory in their repo
What's the problem with the approach?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s Apples to Oranges. Me saying “Co-authored by Joe Smith” gives the human, Joe Smith, possible exposure and definite credit. “Co-authored by Copilot” gives a multi billion dollar corp free advertising. I don’t care about them. I do care about Joe though.
Positive credit is not the only purpose of attribution. There's also the named authors not taking credit for something they didn't fully do, regardless of whether the credit goes to someone else. There's also traceability, if the authors/provenance needs to be considered because of some kind of problem or potential problem -- technical, legal, security, or otherwise.
Advertising in git commits is not ever going to substantially discredit these people or hold them accountable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Imagine a human co-author on a work. "Written with a co-author" would not be sufficient attribution.
A clanker isn’t a human it’s a tool. I don’t write “Coauthored by VSCode” when I use find and replace.
The fact that it's just a tool is irrelevant. You don't need to mention search and replace because everyone already knows that exists... mind you I have had commit messages which included sed commandlines, for ease of future reuse.