3 ms·

On one hand, LLMs aren’t people and attributing code to them is incorrect. On the other, what they output is ultimately a (complicated) modification of the tra

On one hand, LLMs aren’t people and attributing code to them is incorrect. On the other, what they output is ultimately a (complicated) modification of the training data they’ve ingested, so people should made sure to attribute any code that’s been generated using an LLM trained on BSD sources appropriately.

wyum 2mo ago
Agreed - we need a different designation than "co-author."
- WCSTombs 2mo ago
  I recall the Linux kernel uses "Assisted-by" lines or something like that, which sounds about right.
  - wyum 1mo ago
    That's right. I think this is The Way: https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-assistants.html https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-assistants.html
    - dhanush 1mo ago
      I really like this idea. I'm going to take this up and do this instead on my PRs.
- hervem 2mo ago
  Nothing stop to us to introduce something like `Co-authored-by:` but for AI, like `AI-Assisted-by: <harness/model>` / `AI-Paired-by: <harness/model>` / `AI-Copiloted-by: <harness/model>` / `AI-Automated-by: <harness/model>`.