4 ms·

The ads are annoying, and I'm glad Microsoft will stop doing it. One thing I do like, however, is how agents add themselves as co-authors in commit messages. H

The ads are annoying, and I'm glad Microsoft will stop doing it. One thing I do like, however, is how agents add themselves as co-authors in commit messages. Having a signal for which commits are by hand and which are by agent is very useful, both for you and in aggregate (to see how well you are wielding AI, and the quality of the code being generated). Even when I edit the commit message, I still leave in the Claude co-author note. AI coding is a new skill that we're all still figuring out, so this will help us develop best practices for generating quality code.

swimmingbrain 7mo ago
[dead]
jackp96 7mo ago
So, philosophically speaking, I agree with this approach. But I did read that there was some speculation regarding the future legal implications of signalling that an AI wrote/cowrote a commit. I know Anthropic's been pretty clear that we own the generated code, but if a copyright lawsuit goes sideways (since these were all built with pirated data and licensed code) — does that open you or your company up to litigation risk in the future? And selfishly — I'd rather not run into a scenario where my boss pulls up GitHub, sees Claude credited for hundreds of commits, and then he impulsively decides that perhaps Claude's doing the real work here and that we could downsize our dev team or replace with cheaper, younger developers.
- dpoloncsak 7mo ago
  I'm pretty sure IF a copyright lawsuit went sideways you would still be open to litigation risk, just hiding the evidence. What you're doing would fundamentally be similar to copyright theft, using 'someone' else's code without attributing them (it?) to avoid repercussions Obviously the morals and ethics of not attributing an LLM vs an actual human vary. I am not trying to simp for the machines here.
- nemomarx 7mo ago
  If you're concerned about copyright risk, don't you want that kind of tagging so you could prove it wasn't used on particular code?
  - PunchyHamster 7mo ago
    not tagging something doesn't prove AI wasn't used
- mikkupikku 7mo ago
  Let your employer's lawyers worry about that. If they say not to use LLMs, then you should abide by that or find a new job. But if they don't care, then why should you? As for hobby projects, I strongly encourage you to not care. You aren't going to lawyer up to sue anybody, nor is anybody going to sue you, so YOLO. Do whatever satisfies you.
yarn_ 7mo ago
I don't quite see the benefit of this, personally. Whoever is submitting the code is still responsible for it, why would the reviewer care if you wrote it with your fingers or if an LLM wrote (parts of) it? The quality+understanding bar shouldn't change just because "oh idk claude wrote this part". You don't get extra leeway just because you saved your own time writing the code - that fact doesn't benefit me/the project in any way. Likewise, leaving AI attribution in will probably have the opposite effect as well, where a perfectly good few lines of code gets rejected because some reviewer saw it was claude and assumed it was slop. Neither of these cases seems helpful to anyone (obviously its not like AI can't write a single useable line of code). The code is either good or it isn't, and you either understand it or you don't. Whether you or claude wrote it is immaterial.
- Forgeties79 7mo ago
  > Whoever is submitting the code is still responsible for it, why would the reviewer care if you wrote it with your fingers or if an LLM wrote (parts of) it? Maybe one day we can say that, but currently, it matters a lot to a lot of people for many reasons.
  - yarn_ 7mo ago
    > Likewise, leaving AI attribution in will probably have the opposite effect as well, where a perfectly good few lines of code gets rejected because some reviewer saw it was claude and assumed it was slop. Neither of these cases seems helpful to anyone (obviously its not like AI can't write a single useable line of code)." That was my point here, it is a false signal in both directions.
    - Forgeties79 7mo ago
      According to you it’s all false. I don’t agree, and it certainly shouldn’t just be taken as a given. For instance, I would want any AI generated video showing real people to have a disclaimer. Same way we have disclaimers when tv ads note if the people are actors or not with testimonials and the like. That is not only not false, but is actually a useful signal that helps present overly deceptive practices.
fortran77 7mo ago
Yes. I don't mind AI submissions to my hobby projects as long as there's a person behind it. Only fully automated slop I mind. Before AI I used to get all sorts of PRs from people changing a comment or a line of documentation just so they can get more green squares on their GitHub summary. Plus ça change.... A line at the bottom of PRs, reports, etc that says "authored with the help of Copilot" is fine.
themafia 7mo ago
Stealing copyrighted code and calling it your own is not a "skill."
- HDThoreaun 7mo ago
  of course it is
  - johnnyanmac 7mo ago
    "Great artists steal" - Steve Jobs
johnnyanmac 7mo ago
It's nice that you believe the goal most Ai code is striving for it "generataing quality code".

swimmingbrain 7mo ago

[dead]

jackp96 7mo ago

So, philosophically speaking, I agree with this approach. But I did read that there was some speculation regarding the future legal implications of signalling that an AI wrote/cowrote a commit. I know Anthropic's been pretty clear that we own the generated code, but if a copyright lawsuit goes sideways (since these were all built with pirated data and licensed code) — does that open you or your company up to litigation risk in the future? And selfishly — I'd rather not run into a scenario where my boss pulls up GitHub, sees Claude credited for hundreds of commits, and then he impulsively decides that perhaps Claude's doing the real work here and that we could downsize our dev team or replace with cheaper, younger developers.

dpoloncsak 7mo ago
I'm pretty sure IF a copyright lawsuit went sideways you would still be open to litigation risk, just hiding the evidence. What you're doing would fundamentally be similar to copyright theft, using 'someone' else's code without attributing them (it?) to avoid repercussions Obviously the morals and ethics of not attributing an LLM vs an actual human vary. I am not trying to simp for the machines here.
nemomarx 7mo ago
If you're concerned about copyright risk, don't you want that kind of tagging so you could prove it wasn't used on particular code?
- PunchyHamster 7mo ago
  not tagging something doesn't prove AI wasn't used
mikkupikku 7mo ago
Let your employer's lawyers worry about that. If they say not to use LLMs, then you should abide by that or find a new job. But if they don't care, then why should you? As for hobby projects, I strongly encourage you to not care. You aren't going to lawyer up to sue anybody, nor is anybody going to sue you, so YOLO. Do whatever satisfies you.

yarn_ 7mo ago

I don't quite see the benefit of this, personally. Whoever is submitting the code is still responsible for it, why would the reviewer care if you wrote it with your fingers or if an LLM wrote (parts of) it? The quality+understanding bar shouldn't change just because "oh idk claude wrote this part". You don't get extra leeway just because you saved your own time writing the code - that fact doesn't benefit me/the project in any way. Likewise, leaving AI attribution in will probably have the opposite effect as well, where a perfectly good few lines of code gets rejected because some reviewer saw it was claude and assumed it was slop. Neither of these cases seems helpful to anyone (obviously its not like AI can't write a single useable line of code). The code is either good or it isn't, and you either understand it or you don't. Whether you or claude wrote it is immaterial.

Forgeties79 7mo ago
> Whoever is submitting the code is still responsible for it, why would the reviewer care if you wrote it with your fingers or if an LLM wrote (parts of) it? Maybe one day we can say that, but currently, it matters a lot to a lot of people for many reasons.
- yarn_ 7mo ago
  > Likewise, leaving AI attribution in will probably have the opposite effect as well, where a perfectly good few lines of code gets rejected because some reviewer saw it was claude and assumed it was slop. Neither of these cases seems helpful to anyone (obviously its not like AI can't write a single useable line of code)." That was my point here, it is a false signal in both directions.
  - Forgeties79 7mo ago
    According to you it’s all false. I don’t agree, and it certainly shouldn’t just be taken as a given. For instance, I would want any AI generated video showing real people to have a disclaimer. Same way we have disclaimers when tv ads note if the people are actors or not with testimonials and the like. That is not only not false, but is actually a useful signal that helps present overly deceptive practices.

fortran77 7mo ago

Yes. I don't mind AI submissions to my hobby projects as long as there's a person behind it. Only fully automated slop I mind. Before AI I used to get all sorts of PRs from people changing a comment or a line of documentation just so they can get more green squares on their GitHub summary. Plus ça change.... A line at the bottom of PRs, reports, etc that says "authored with the help of Copilot" is fine.

themafia 7mo ago

Stealing copyrighted code and calling it your own is not a "skill."

HDThoreaun 7mo ago
of course it is
- johnnyanmac 7mo ago
  "Great artists steal" - Steve Jobs

johnnyanmac 7mo ago

It's nice that you believe the goal most Ai code is striving for it "generataing quality code".