Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
82% Positive
Analyzed from 1250 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#author#claude#commit#code#llm#responsibility#never#llms#maybe#don
Discussion Sentiment
Analyzed from 1250 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
Discussion (32 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
One of the few aspects of generative AI in coding that to my knowledge has never been controversial is that no matter what, the code's human author is fully responsible for it (even if an LLM actually wrote it). So adding anything about LLMs in a commit message has never been a real way to escape responsibility, even a little bit. Maybe this author's workplace is different, but I kind of doubt it, and even then they're not only talking about their coding at work.
The author goes on to say that they also do want to be transparent about their LLM use, and they suggest some ways to do so...great! On the receiving end of the code, that's all I need. There's nothing sacred about the commit message in my opinion, to make it the one true place to disclose LLM assistance. So ultimately I don't think I have a huge disagreement with the author, just that their justification makes no sense to me. The only time I hear that LLMs supposedly help you evade responsibility is from people trying to avoid disclosing LLM use.
>A few years ago I’d never have added Google or StackOverflow as co-authors.
That's not as good of an argument as you think. If you copied entire functions or files wholesale, it would be fair to attribute that, even if you "reviewed" it.
> A few years ago I’d never have added Google or StackOverflow as co-authors. But I would have added a link to post that helped and I’ll continue to do so now.
My personal feeling so far is, seeing claude code as co-author in my commits inevitably makes me not pay as much attention to the commit. And removing that forces me to really recognize that, hey this is my work. And I'd better make sure this is of the same quality that I would do otherwise. Kind of like a psychological hack maybe? But it seems to work better.
Overall, this is just a series of steps I'm taking to maintain my agency in my work.
But I would not ever call the StackOverflow user a "co-author" on my commits.
I think that distinction matters.
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.
Advertising seems like the main reason, and maybe trying to over-anthropomorphize the tools.
I take responsibility when I am driving the AI. I wouldn't call my vehicle the "co-driver," even in cruise control (or these days, self-driving mode). Yes, it's doing a ton of work for me, but it is still just a tool.
I do think it's useful to log what model was used, but not as "co-author."
Exception: if a cloud agent designs and authors a commit autonomously, then it can be the "author," if only because I want it to be clear that my hands weren't on the wheel.
> What about attributions and disclaimers for AI generated work? If you’re concerned being transparent to anyone seeing your work, either create an AI specific account that commits with your name or add a big disclaimer to your project’s readme that this is AI slop and there be dragons.
Hope that helps clarify my stance. :)
It makes it a lot harder to notice how much you're using LLMs, for what gain?
> If you’re concerned being transparent to anyone
Since heavy LLM users are unlikely to have that concern, let's just maintain this default.
I imagine you'd like agents to stop signing commits unless asked to, but that would make even actual vibe coding a lot harder to detect.
1. 100% human 0% AI.
2. 100% AI, 0% human.
3. Everything in between.
1 and 2 are easy enough, but in 3 the human effort is not clearly legible or even measurable.
Why people are so compelled to gospel about their saviors to others? Why tech became a cult?
>Side projects is completely upto you
That hardly strikes me as "gospel about their saviors" to me. Not to mention at least in my circles that statement is approximately true, even at a company that hasn't gone full AI-crazy (eg. with unlimited token spend and AI use leaderboards).
Even my most contrarian friends have a hard time justifying coding by hand. To say it slopaganda style; That’s not a cult, that’s common sense.
That's not common sense, that's bs.
If you do it they're likely to end up slowing you down, instead of being a help.
If you assume full responsibility for your usage of AI, don't try to hide it!
Commits signed by Claude are a good and very visible indicator of what to expect from an open source project.
> A carpenter may sign their work. But they don’t add the name of the saw they used to cut wood, do they
Saws are unlikely to lie about what they've done, and don't decide what to do autonomously.
If we'll get saws that do that, I'll very much want to know if a carpenter working on my home used them.
> However, now it’s obvious and even expected that using LLMs is the way forward
Good to know that it's obvious for you.
This is the way