3 ms·

So many comments in here are missing the point. By not crediting and personifying the LLM, one (re)takes full human responsibility over the produced works and

So many comments in here are missing the point. By not crediting and personifying the LLM, one (re)takes full human responsibility over the produced works and stated claims. As a result one won’t become an “agent” for the LLM. The title could have been Don’t blame the LLM. When we first started using LLMs professionally it was fine to hide behind disclaimers. Now with widespread adoption it’s time to step out of the LLM’s shadow and take credit/blame again.

qprofyeh 2mo ago
On a lighter note: it’s perfectly fine to take full credit for caring about a problem.
sshine 2mo ago
This whole discussion is a result of Claude using "Co-authored-by" as advertisement because it massively propagates the Claude logo to GitHub. As an advertisement strategy, this is extremely impressive. Unfortunately, it conflates what's meant by co-authoring. Because so far, Claude has not claimed sovereignty as an artificial intelligence, so actually, mentally crediting Claude is like crediting Vim or Emacs. We don't have to think of our tools as being authors just because Anthropic did. The Co-authored-by had a real meaning related to accountability. Putting our tool in front of us is like letting our cat drive the car. I mean, it's fine if it sits in our lap with the paws on the wheel wearing sunglasses. Just don't pretend it is the one deciding the direction, taking critical turns. Because when we get pulled over, the cops aren't gonna buy it. And neither is anyone on GitHub. We know Claude is still just a program.