6 ms·

> […] 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 could

> […] 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?
  - corndoge 7mo ago
    A junior is a person. A tool is a tool. Do you credit your text editor with authorship?
    - scottyah 7mo ago
      If it contributed significantly to the design and execution, and was a major contributing factor yes. Would you say a reserve parachute saved your life or would you say you saved your own life? What about the maker of the parachute? I'd be thanking the reserve and the people who made it, and credit myself with the small action of slightly moving my hand as much as its worth. Also, text editors would be a better analogy if the commit message referenced whether it was created in the web ui, tui, or desktop app.
      - corndoge 7mo ago
        I suppose that for me the tool rarely contributes to the design and execution. At work and for any project I care about, I prompt once I know what I want, in terms of both function and the shape of the program to do it. If the model gen matches the shape closely enough, I accept, otherwise iterate from there. To me this is authorship. When I vibe code - which for me, means using very high level prompts and largely not reading the output - then I could see attributing authorship to a model; but then I wonder what the purpose of authorship attribution is to begin with. Is it to tell you who to talk to about the code? Is it personal attestation to quality, or to responsibility? Is it credit? Some combination of these certainly, but AI can hold none except the last, and the last is, to me, rather pointless. Objects don't have feelings and therefore are unaffected by whether credit is given or not; that's purely a human concern. I suppose the dividing line is fuzzy and perhaps best judged on the basis of the obscenity rule, that is, I know it when I see it.
    - jacobgkau 7mo ago
      False equivalence. A text editor does not type characters that you didn't explicitly type or select.
  - data-ottawa 7mo ago
- homebrewer 7mo ago
  Linux has used "Reviewed-by" trailers for many years. If you've only done minor editing, or none at all, it's something to consider.
yarn_ 7mo ago
"Why would I commit something written by AI with myself as author?" Because you're the one who decided to take responsibility for it, and actually choose to PR it in its ultimate form. What utility do the reviews/maintainers get from you marking whats written by you vs. chatgpt? Other than your ability to scapegoat the LLM? The only thing that actually affects me (the hypothetical reviewer) and the project is the quality of the actual code, and, ideally, the presence of a contributer (you) who can actually answer for that code. The presence or absence of LLM generated code by your hand makes no difference to me or the project, why would it? Why would it affect my decision making whatsoever? Its your code, end of story. Either that or the PR should just be rejected, because nobody is taking responsibility for it.
- Krssst 7mo ago
  As someone mostly outside of the vibe coding stuff, I can see the benefit in having both the model and the author information. Model information for traceability and possibly future analysis/statistics, and author to know who is taking responsibility for the changes (and, thus, has deeply reviewed and understood them). As long as those two information are present in the commit, I guess which commit field should hold which information is for the project to standardise. (but it should be normalised within a project, otherwise the "traceability/statistics" part cannot be applied reliably).
  - corndoge 7mo ago
    Yeah, nothing wrong with keeping the metadata - but "Authored-by" is both credit and an attestation of responsibility. I think people just haven't thought about it too much and see it mostly as credit and less as responsibility.
    - josephg 7mo ago
      I disagree. “Authored by” - and authorship in general - says who did the work. Not who signed off on the work. Reviewed-by me, authored by Claude feels most correct.
orwin 7mo ago
I'm not against putting AI as coauthor, but removing the human who allowed the commit to be pushed/deployed from the commit would be a security issue at my job. The only reason we're allowed to deploy code with a generic account is that we tag the repo/commit hash, and we wrote a small piece of code that retrieve the author UID from git, so that in the log it say 'user XXXNNN opened the flux xxx' (or something else depending on what our code does)

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?
- corndoge 7mo ago
  A junior is a person. A tool is a tool. Do you credit your text editor with authorship?
  - scottyah 7mo ago
    If it contributed significantly to the design and execution, and was a major contributing factor yes. Would you say a reserve parachute saved your life or would you say you saved your own life? What about the maker of the parachute? I'd be thanking the reserve and the people who made it, and credit myself with the small action of slightly moving my hand as much as its worth. Also, text editors would be a better analogy if the commit message referenced whether it was created in the web ui, tui, or desktop app.
    - corndoge 7mo ago
      I suppose that for me the tool rarely contributes to the design and execution. At work and for any project I care about, I prompt once I know what I want, in terms of both function and the shape of the program to do it. If the model gen matches the shape closely enough, I accept, otherwise iterate from there. To me this is authorship. When I vibe code - which for me, means using very high level prompts and largely not reading the output - then I could see attributing authorship to a model; but then I wonder what the purpose of authorship attribution is to begin with. Is it to tell you who to talk to about the code? Is it personal attestation to quality, or to responsibility? Is it credit? Some combination of these certainly, but AI can hold none except the last, and the last is, to me, rather pointless. Objects don't have feelings and therefore are unaffected by whether credit is given or not; that's purely a human concern. I suppose the dividing line is fuzzy and perhaps best judged on the basis of the obscenity rule, that is, I know it when I see it.
  - jacobgkau 7mo ago
    False equivalence. A text editor does not type characters that you didn't explicitly type or select.
- data-ottawa 7mo ago
homebrewer 7mo ago
Linux has used "Reviewed-by" trailers for many years. If you've only done minor editing, or none at all, it's something to consider.

yarn_ 7mo ago

"Why would I commit something written by AI with myself as author?" Because you're the one who decided to take responsibility for it, and actually choose to PR it in its ultimate form. What utility do the reviews/maintainers get from you marking whats written by you vs. chatgpt? Other than your ability to scapegoat the LLM? The only thing that actually affects me (the hypothetical reviewer) and the project is the quality of the actual code, and, ideally, the presence of a contributer (you) who can actually answer for that code. The presence or absence of LLM generated code by your hand makes no difference to me or the project, why would it? Why would it affect my decision making whatsoever? Its your code, end of story. Either that or the PR should just be rejected, because nobody is taking responsibility for it.

Krssst 7mo ago
As someone mostly outside of the vibe coding stuff, I can see the benefit in having both the model and the author information. Model information for traceability and possibly future analysis/statistics, and author to know who is taking responsibility for the changes (and, thus, has deeply reviewed and understood them). As long as those two information are present in the commit, I guess which commit field should hold which information is for the project to standardise. (but it should be normalised within a project, otherwise the "traceability/statistics" part cannot be applied reliably).
- corndoge 7mo ago
  Yeah, nothing wrong with keeping the metadata - but "Authored-by" is both credit and an attestation of responsibility. I think people just haven't thought about it too much and see it mostly as credit and less as responsibility.
  - josephg 7mo ago
    I disagree. “Authored by” - and authorship in general - says who did the work. Not who signed off on the work. Reviewed-by me, authored by Claude feels most correct.

orwin 7mo ago

I'm not against putting AI as coauthor, but removing the human who allowed the commit to be pushed/deployed from the commit would be a security issue at my job. The only reason we're allowed to deploy code with a generic account is that we tag the repo/commit hash, and we wrote a small piece of code that retrieve the author UID from git, so that in the log it say 'user XXXNNN opened the flux xxx' (or something else depending on what our code does)