6 ms·

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

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 trying to have the tool do all of their work for them.

8cvor6j844qw_d6 7mo ago
It's part of the attribution settings from `.claude/settings.json` if you're referring to Claude Code. Personally, I adjusted the defaults since I don't like emojis in my PR. [1]: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/settings#attribution-settings https://code.claude.com/docs/en/settings#attribution-setting...
- silverwind 7mo ago
  I have instructions for these because the attribution settings don't accept placeholder tokens like `<model>`, `<version>` etc.
lokimedes 7mo ago
I just submitted my first Claude authored application to Github and noticed this. I actually like it, although anthropomorphizing my coding tools seems a bit weird, it also provides a transparent way for others to weigh the quality of the code. It didn’t even strike me as relevant to hide it, so I’d not exactly call it lazy, rather ask why bother pretending in first place?
- waisbrot 7mo ago
  Looking back, it would have been neat to have more metadata in my old Git commits. Were there any differences when I was writing with IntelliJ vs VSCode?
  - scottyah 7mo ago
    Probably your linter, language, or intelligence/whatever tab-complete you used. Claude writes which model they used to write the code, not whether it was in the web ui, tui app, or desktop app.
  - esafak 7mo ago
    If you want more metadata going forward: https://usegitai.com/ https://usegitai.com/
QuantumNomad_ 7mo ago
> […] 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 was doing the opposite when using ChatGPT. Specifically manually setting the git commit author as ChatGPT complete with model used, and setting myself as committer. That way I (and everyone else) can see what parts of the code were completely written by ChatGPT. For changes that I made myself, I commit with myself as author. Why would I commit something written by AI with myself as author? > I think we should continue encouraging AI-generated PRs to label themselves, honestly. Exactly.
- Imustaskforhelp 7mo ago
  > Why would I commit something written by AI as myself? I don't use any paid AI models (for all my usecases, free models usually work really well) and so for some small scripts/prototypes, I usually just use even sometimes the gemini model but aistudio.google.com is good one too. I then sometimes, manually paste it and just hit enter. These are prototypes though, although I build in public. Mostly done for experimental purpoess. I am not sure how many people might be doing the same though. But in some previous projects I have had projects stating "made by gemini" etc. maybe I should write commit message/description stating AI has written this but I really like having the msg be something relevant to the creation of file etc. and there is also the fact that github copilot itself sometimes generate them for you so you have to manually remove it if you wish to change what the commit says.
- smrtinsert 7mo ago
  If you review the code then committing as yourself makes perfect sense to me
  - nemomarx 7mo ago
    If you review a juniors code, do you commit it under your name?
    - 7mo ago
neya 7mo ago
> I would like to know when someone is trying to have the tool do all of their work for them. Absolutely spot on. Maybe I'm old school, but I never let AI touch my commit message history. That is for me - when 6 months down the line I am looking at it, retracing my steps - affirming my thought process and direction of development, I need absolute clarity. That is also because I take pride in my work. If you let an AI commit gibberish into the history, that pollution is definitely going to cost you down the line, I will definitely be going "WTF was it doing here? Why was this even approved?" and that's a situation I never want to find myself in. Again, old man yells at cloud and all, but hey, if you don't own the code you write, who else will?
- scottyah 7mo ago
  There will always be room for craftsmen stamping their work, like the expensive Japanese bonsai scissors. Most of the world just uses whatever mass-produced scissors were created by a system of rotating people, with no clear owner/maker. There's plenty of middle ground for systems who put their mark on their product.
  - neya 7mo ago
    Fair enough.
- esafak 7mo ago
  If you architect and review everything, but someone else does the implementation, and you iterate, do you believe you did not do anything? I let AI write the commit message too, and the motivation behind the PR is the first thing in it. With my guidance, of course.
mikkupikku 7mo ago
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.
- zeroonetwothree 7mo ago
  I think it depends a lot if you reviewed it as carefully as you would your own code. Of course most people don’t do that
  - mikkupikku 7mo ago
    I don't put human code reviewers down as coauthors let alone the sole authors of my commit. So honestly, the fact that a vibe coded commit lists me as the author at all is a little bit dodgy but I think I'm okay with it. The LLM needs to be coauthor at least though, if not outright the author. So even if I go over the commit with a fine tooth comb and feel comfortable staking my personal reputation on the commit, I still can't call myself the sole author.
    - hombre_fatal 7mo ago
      The implementor only got credit in the day where the implementor was a human who had to do a lot of the work, often all of the work. Now that the cost of writing code is $0, the planner gets the credit. Like how you don't put human code reviewers down as coauthors, you also don't put the computer down as a coauthor for everything you use the computer to do. It used to be the case where if someone wrote the software, you knew they put in a certain amount of work writing it and planning it. I think the main issue now is that you can't know that anymore. Even something that's vibe-coded might have many hours of serious iterative work and planning. But without using the output or deep-diving the code to get a sense of its polish, there's no way to tell if it is the result of a one-shot or a lot of serious work. "Coauthored by computer" doesn't help this distinction. And asking people to opt-in to some shame tag isn't a solution that generalizes nor fixes anything since the issue is with people who ship poor quality software. Instead we should demand good software just like we did when it was all human-written and still low quality.
junon 7mo ago
Agreed! Easy close/ban for me.
hrmtst93837 7mo ago
[flagged]
trevor-e 7mo ago
These are odd takes to me. > was submitted by someone so lazy they couldn’t even edit the commit message. You can see the vibe coded PRs right away. As others mentioned, this is very intentional for me now as I use agents. It has nothing to do with laziness, I'm not sure why you would think that? I assume vibe coded PRs are easy enough to spot by the contents alone. > I would like to know when someone is trying to have the tool do all of their work for them. What makes you think the LLM is doing _all_ of the work? Is it really an impossibility that an agent does 75% of the work and then a responsible human reviews the code and makes tweaks before opening a PR?
- Aurornis 7mo ago
  > It has nothing to do with laziness, I'm not sure why you would think that? Because even with as far as Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.4 have come, they still produce a lot of unwanted, unnecessary, or overly complex code when left to their own devices. Vibe coding PRs and then submitting them as-is is lazy. Everyone should be reviewing and editing their own PRs before submission. If you're just vibe coding and submitting, you're passing all of the work on to your team to review your AI's output.
  - trevor-e 7mo ago
    Right, and I agree with all of that, but that's not related to my point. You are saying "if you leave the AI attribution in the PR/commit description, it HAS to be a slop PR that was not reviewed by a human beforehand". And I'm saying that's not true at all and you shouldn't assume that.
m3kw9 7mo ago
Get a grip with reality man, if you don’t leverage LLMs in your workflow, you are at an disadvantage
- Aurornis 7mo ago
  > Get a grip with reality man, Please read my comment before throwing insults. My comment literally said I'm not anti-LLM. I do use LLMs. I do not submit their output as-is. For anything beyond basic changes they rarely output the exact code I want by themselves. I said I'm against people submitted PRs generated by LLMs and pretending it's their own work. Anyone who is serious about this already edits their code and commit messages first. These little signals give a good tell for who isn't doing that.
calibas 7mo ago
You're conflating two different things. When an LLM writes a commit, it should take credit. I see nothing wrong with it adding: > Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 noreply@anthropic.com Compare that to the message the article is talking about: > Quickly spin up Copilot coding agent tasks from anywhere on your macOS or Windows machine with Raycast (https://gh.io/cca-raycast-docs https://gh.io/cca-raycast-docs). It's not just mentioning it was written via Copilot, it's explicitly advertising for another product.
- Aurornis 7mo ago
  I understand what it's doing. I'm just saying that I'll take any signals I can get that someone is lazily submitted LLM-generated work without edit or review. If you saw this line in a commit, you'd know exactly where it came from.
  - calibas 7mo ago
    I get what you're saying, but I disagree that LLMs should be inserting ads into git commits. By default, the LLM is credited with authorship anyway, and I assume the user can easily just remove the ad, though I don't use Copilot.
ventana 7mo ago
I actually like the Claude's Co-Authored-By: line very much. Even in my personal repositories, where I'm the sole author and the sole reader, I would like to know if my older commit I'm looking at was vibe coded, implying possibly lower quality or weird logical issues with the code. So, my personal rule is: if I implemented a feature with Claude, I'll ask it to commit the code and it will add Co-Authored-By. If I made the change manually, I'll commit it myself.

8cvor6j844qw_d6 7mo ago

It's part of the attribution settings from `.claude/settings.json` if you're referring to Claude Code. Personally, I adjusted the defaults since I don't like emojis in my PR. [1]: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/settings#attribution-settings https://code.claude.com/docs/en/settings#attribution-setting...

silverwind 7mo ago
I have instructions for these because the attribution settings don't accept placeholder tokens like `<model>`, `<version>` etc.

lokimedes 7mo ago

I just submitted my first Claude authored application to Github and noticed this. I actually like it, although anthropomorphizing my coding tools seems a bit weird, it also provides a transparent way for others to weigh the quality of the code. It didn’t even strike me as relevant to hide it, so I’d not exactly call it lazy, rather ask why bother pretending in first place?

waisbrot 7mo ago
Looking back, it would have been neat to have more metadata in my old Git commits. Were there any differences when I was writing with IntelliJ vs VSCode?
- scottyah 7mo ago
  Probably your linter, language, or intelligence/whatever tab-complete you used. Claude writes which model they used to write the code, not whether it was in the web ui, tui app, or desktop app.
- esafak 7mo ago
  If you want more metadata going forward: https://usegitai.com/ https://usegitai.com/

QuantumNomad_ 7mo ago

> […] 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 was doing the opposite when using ChatGPT. Specifically manually setting the git commit author as ChatGPT complete with model used, and setting myself as committer. That way I (and everyone else) can see what parts of the code were completely written by ChatGPT. For changes that I made myself, I commit with myself as author. Why would I commit something written by AI with myself as author? > I think we should continue encouraging AI-generated PRs to label themselves, honestly. Exactly.

Imustaskforhelp 7mo ago
> Why would I commit something written by AI as myself? I don't use any paid AI models (for all my usecases, free models usually work really well) and so for some small scripts/prototypes, I usually just use even sometimes the gemini model but aistudio.google.com is good one too. I then sometimes, manually paste it and just hit enter. These are prototypes though, although I build in public. Mostly done for experimental purpoess. I am not sure how many people might be doing the same though. But in some previous projects I have had projects stating "made by gemini" etc. maybe I should write commit message/description stating AI has written this but I really like having the msg be something relevant to the creation of file etc. and there is also the fact that github copilot itself sometimes generate them for you so you have to manually remove it if you wish to change what the commit says.
smrtinsert 7mo ago
If you review the code then committing as yourself makes perfect sense to me
- nemomarx 7mo ago
  If you review a juniors code, do you commit it under your name?
  - 7mo ago

neya 7mo ago

> I would like to know when someone is trying to have the tool do all of their work for them. Absolutely spot on. Maybe I'm old school, but I never let AI touch my commit message history. That is for me - when 6 months down the line I am looking at it, retracing my steps - affirming my thought process and direction of development, I need absolute clarity. That is also because I take pride in my work. If you let an AI commit gibberish into the history, that pollution is definitely going to cost you down the line, I will definitely be going "WTF was it doing here? Why was this even approved?" and that's a situation I never want to find myself in. Again, old man yells at cloud and all, but hey, if you don't own the code you write, who else will?

scottyah 7mo ago
There will always be room for craftsmen stamping their work, like the expensive Japanese bonsai scissors. Most of the world just uses whatever mass-produced scissors were created by a system of rotating people, with no clear owner/maker. There's plenty of middle ground for systems who put their mark on their product.
- neya 7mo ago
  Fair enough.
esafak 7mo ago
If you architect and review everything, but someone else does the implementation, and you iterate, do you believe you did not do anything? I let AI write the commit message too, and the motivation behind the PR is the first thing in it. With my guidance, of course.

mikkupikku 7mo ago

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.

zeroonetwothree 7mo ago
I think it depends a lot if you reviewed it as carefully as you would your own code. Of course most people don’t do that
- mikkupikku 7mo ago
  I don't put human code reviewers down as coauthors let alone the sole authors of my commit. So honestly, the fact that a vibe coded commit lists me as the author at all is a little bit dodgy but I think I'm okay with it. The LLM needs to be coauthor at least though, if not outright the author. So even if I go over the commit with a fine tooth comb and feel comfortable staking my personal reputation on the commit, I still can't call myself the sole author.
  - hombre_fatal 7mo ago
    The implementor only got credit in the day where the implementor was a human who had to do a lot of the work, often all of the work. Now that the cost of writing code is $0, the planner gets the credit. Like how you don't put human code reviewers down as coauthors, you also don't put the computer down as a coauthor for everything you use the computer to do. It used to be the case where if someone wrote the software, you knew they put in a certain amount of work writing it and planning it. I think the main issue now is that you can't know that anymore. Even something that's vibe-coded might have many hours of serious iterative work and planning. But without using the output or deep-diving the code to get a sense of its polish, there's no way to tell if it is the result of a one-shot or a lot of serious work. "Coauthored by computer" doesn't help this distinction. And asking people to opt-in to some shame tag isn't a solution that generalizes nor fixes anything since the issue is with people who ship poor quality software. Instead we should demand good software just like we did when it was all human-written and still low quality.

junon 7mo ago

Agreed! Easy close/ban for me.

hrmtst93837 7mo ago

[flagged]

trevor-e 7mo ago

These are odd takes to me. > was submitted by someone so lazy they couldn’t even edit the commit message. You can see the vibe coded PRs right away. As others mentioned, this is very intentional for me now as I use agents. It has nothing to do with laziness, I'm not sure why you would think that? I assume vibe coded PRs are easy enough to spot by the contents alone. > I would like to know when someone is trying to have the tool do all of their work for them. What makes you think the LLM is doing _all_ of the work? Is it really an impossibility that an agent does 75% of the work and then a responsible human reviews the code and makes tweaks before opening a PR?

Aurornis 7mo ago
> It has nothing to do with laziness, I'm not sure why you would think that? Because even with as far as Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.4 have come, they still produce a lot of unwanted, unnecessary, or overly complex code when left to their own devices. Vibe coding PRs and then submitting them as-is is lazy. Everyone should be reviewing and editing their own PRs before submission. If you're just vibe coding and submitting, you're passing all of the work on to your team to review your AI's output.
- trevor-e 7mo ago
  Right, and I agree with all of that, but that's not related to my point. You are saying "if you leave the AI attribution in the PR/commit description, it HAS to be a slop PR that was not reviewed by a human beforehand". And I'm saying that's not true at all and you shouldn't assume that.

m3kw9 7mo ago

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

Aurornis 7mo ago
> Get a grip with reality man, Please read my comment before throwing insults. My comment literally said I'm not anti-LLM. I do use LLMs. I do not submit their output as-is. For anything beyond basic changes they rarely output the exact code I want by themselves. I said I'm against people submitted PRs generated by LLMs and pretending it's their own work. Anyone who is serious about this already edits their code and commit messages first. These little signals give a good tell for who isn't doing that.

calibas 7mo ago

You're conflating two different things. When an LLM writes a commit, it should take credit. I see nothing wrong with it adding: > Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 noreply@anthropic.com Compare that to the message the article is talking about: > Quickly spin up Copilot coding agent tasks from anywhere on your macOS or Windows machine with Raycast (https://gh.io/cca-raycast-docs https://gh.io/cca-raycast-docs). It's not just mentioning it was written via Copilot, it's explicitly advertising for another product.

Aurornis 7mo ago
I understand what it's doing. I'm just saying that I'll take any signals I can get that someone is lazily submitted LLM-generated work without edit or review. If you saw this line in a commit, you'd know exactly where it came from.
- calibas 7mo ago
  I get what you're saying, but I disagree that LLMs should be inserting ads into git commits. By default, the LLM is credited with authorship anyway, and I assume the user can easily just remove the ad, though I don't use Copilot.

ventana 7mo ago

I actually like the Claude's Co-Authored-By: line very much. Even in my personal repositories, where I'm the sole author and the sole reader, I would like to know if my older commit I'm looking at was vibe coded, implying possibly lower quality or weird logical issues with the code. So, my personal rule is: if I implemented a feature with Claude, I'll ask it to commit the code and it will add Co-Authored-By. If I made the change manually, I'll commit it myself.