151–160 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who really cares, though? some people certainly do, to the extent of not caring at all about the outcome, only being concerned with the fact that the process was 'tainted' by ai. the fervor for/against ai can approach the level of religion for some people.
Ideologues always get outcompeted by people with a pragmatic outlook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did you come up with that mental gymnastics? You cannot tell if somebody used what tool to write their code if they don't tell you. This is getting weird.
which is the point to say which specific LLM was used to create the code. i'm not sure how we're talking past each other at this point
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Knowing it was Copilot vs Claude vs ChatGPT makes a difference just like knowing it was Joe Smith vs John Doe
It really doesn't. Same as we don't say "written with vi" or "written by Emacs", even if it is intuitively clear one of the two is better.
Case in point, I have no way to know if dylan604 is even a real human at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really doesn't. Same as we don't say "written with vi" or "written by Emacs", even if it is intuitively clear one of the two is better.
I don't know why dylan604 is trying to die on this hill but thats the point, you can't tell apart people using different tools, everybody has their own preferences. Case in point, I have no way to know if dylan604 is even a real human at this point.
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…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I have done that in the past to provide zero-setup development environments for our internal python packages. What's the problem with the approach?
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.
Find and replace behaves the same in most IDEs, but for large changes, the specific LLM can affect the generated code for the same prompt
To anyone reading, I'll happily sell out ad space at the rate of $1/commit Claude Code and Codex get it for free, though, because I don't mind disclosing my AI usage.
This comment brought to you by “Jessica, come back from your mom’s, I didn’t mean what I said!” - Scott in Oklahoma.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly what you're supposed to do - if a tool generated the code in a commit, you should be using a commit trailer for that. Whether that's uniffi, an rpc preprocessor, dependabot or renovate, or some AI tool.
> That's exactly what you're supposed to do this does not seem to match reality, see: 1. count for claude as co-author: 25M 2. count for speakeasy as co-author: 917 3. count for stainless as co-author: 6.2k 4. count for alembic as co-author: *Your search did not match any commits* ex. search: https://github.com/search?q=%22Co-Authored-By%3A+Claude%22+%...