91–100 of 178 posts
I don't know, it is a useful signal that the person did not think deeply about their code changes, and should be treated as such.
I use the ai as a tool, it helps me as an adhd autistic person to get things done. I still care about quality as much as before!!!
I’m so tired of bad actors fucking things up for the rest of us who do things right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who really cares, though? AI is just a tool. If the code is good, the code is good.
> 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.
It's one thing if you're using AI to create code in a corporate context. Not my issue when some GPL code gets AI-laundered into production code and it eventually crops up. That's for legal, the C level and whatever AI provider's indemnification to sort out. Not my circus, not my monkeys.
But for personal projects? Ain't no way AI touches that stuff, ever. I simply don't want to deal with even the potential risk of getting expensive nastygrams from lawyers.
> Disclose your "AI" tools in a merge request if needed but leave them out of the damn commits, those are for technical information and not for advertising. I think this is very poor advice. Knowing who/what changed the code is often crucial for understanding why it changed.
I don’t agree/disagree, but why does knowing Claude vs. Codex did it become crucial? What can you do with that information?
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…
I mean, sure, except that many large open-source projects (e.g. Linux [1], Nixpkgs [2], etc) require this as part of their AI policy. Omit attribution in your own projects if you want, but the maintainers of these projects are owed at least that level of transparency for contributions. [1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-assistants.html [2] https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commit/d18b8f3238abdb2cd878...
Notably though, Linux's requirement (Assisted-by) is different from what Claude Code actually does (Co-Authored-By). I'm not sure, but it might be intentional (to make the signaling explicit).
Personally, I prefer Assisted-By. Co-Authored-By implies a level of respect and self-direction I don't think LLM's deserve.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Imagine a human co-author on a work. "Written with a co-author" would not be sufficient attribution.
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.
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.
commit 85cd835e5923cddc1882e74354eac8dba6a925c1 (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD) Author: John AuthorDate: Fri May 22 13:25:33 2026 -0000 Merged PR #197 Tired of planning for dinner every day? FoodDrop™ is the premier ready-to-cook meal-by-drone delivery service in the greater Vancouver area and Belize. Get one month of food dropped onto your driveway by FoodDrop™ for only $12.95 when you use this commit's…
Huh? It's not advertising, it's disclosure that the code was not fully (or at all) written by you.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Imagine a human co-author on a work. "Written with a co-author" would not be sufficient attribution.
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.