Comment by Aurornis
2 months ago
I actually love these ads 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 think we should continue encouraging AI-generated PRs to label themselves, honestly.
I’m not against AI coding tools, but I would like to know when someone is trying to have the tool do all of their work for them.
It's not a self-own, it's honest disclosure. It's unethical (if not outright fraudulent) to publish LLM work as if it were your own. Claude setting itself as coauthor is a good way to address this problem, and it doing so by default is a very good thing.
> It's unethical (if not outright fraudulent) to publish LLM work as if it were your own.
I disagree on that. It's really a gray area.
If it's some lazy vibecoded shit, I think what you say totally applies.
If the human did the thinking, gave the agent detailed instructions, and/or carefully reviewed the output, then I don't think it's so clear cut.
And full disclosure, I'm reacting more to copilot here, which lists itself as the author and you as the co-author. I'm not giving credit to the machine, like I'm some appendage to it (which is totally what the powers-that-be want me to become).
> Claude setting itself as coauthor is a good way to address this problem, and it doing so by default is a very good thing.
I do agree that's a sensible default.
Telling someone you did something that you actually didn't do isn't a gray area, it's a lie.
Using AI tools to code and then hiding that is unethical imo.
3 replies →
> It's really a gray area.
Yes, it really depends on how much work the agent did produce. It could be as little as doing a renaming or a refactoring, or execute direct orders that require no creativity or problem solving. In which case the agent shouldn't be credited more than the linter or the IDE.
I think it depends a lot if you reviewed it as carefully as you would your own code.
Of course most people don’t do that
I don't put human code reviewers down as coauthors let alone the sole authors of my commit. So honestly, the fact that a vibe coded commit lists me as the author at all is a little bit dodgy but I think I'm okay with it. The LLM needs to be coauthor at least though, if not outright the author.
So even if I go over the commit with a fine tooth comb and feel comfortable staking my personal reputation on the commit, I still can't call myself the sole author.
4 replies →
In my project's readme I put this text:
It's not that I want to hide the use of llms, I just modified code a lot before pushing, which led me to this approach. As llms improve, I might have to change this though.
Interested to read opinions on this approach.
2 replies →
Not just review but how you worked with the AI.
If you gave it four words and waited and hour maybe you're not the author. But that's not how these tools are best used anyway.
Should Word set itself as my coauthor when it autocompletes some sentences for me? If I use Claude/Word to write something, then I am the only author, since Claude/Word is not a person, and Claude/Word did nothing without my direction. It's not unethical to not disclose the tools I use to produce my work. They're just tools, smdh.
With Word autocomplete you're still actively writing your text. Wouldn't it be more fair to compare this with autocompletion in IDEs?
IANAL so I appreciate any legal experts to correct me here. In my understanding, there have been court decisions that LLM output itself is not copyrightable. You can only claim authorship (and therefore copyright) if you have significantly transformed the output.
If you are truely vibing coding to the point where you don't even look at the generated code, how exactly are you transforming the LLM output?
Also, what if the LLM reproduces existing copyrighted code? There has been a court decision last year in Germany that says that OpenAI violates German copyright law because ChatGPT may recreate existing song lyrics (that are licensed by GEMA) or create very similar variations.
> […] 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.
"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.
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).
9 replies →
Claude adds "Co-authored by" attribution for itself when committing, so you can see the human author and also the bot.
I think this is a good balance, because if you don't care about the bot you still see the human author. And if you do care (for example, I'd like to be able to review commits and see which were substantially bot-written and which were mostly human) then it's also easy.
11 replies →
> 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.
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)
If you review the code then committing as yourself makes perfect sense to me
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.
If you review a juniors code, do you commit it under your name?
5 replies →
I just submitted my first Claude authored application to Github and noticed this. I actually like it, although anthropomorphizing my coding tools seems a bit weird, it also provides a transparent way for others to weigh the quality of the code. It didn’t even strike me as relevant to hide it, so I’d not exactly call it lazy, rather ask why bother pretending in first place?
Looking back, it would have been neat to have more metadata in my old Git commits. Were there any differences when I was writing with IntelliJ vs VSCode?
Probably your linter, language, or intelligence/whatever tab-complete you used. Claude writes which model they used to write the code, not whether it was in the web ui, tui app, or desktop app.
If you want more metadata going forward: https://usegitai.com/
It's part of the attribution settings from `.claude/settings.json` if you're referring to Claude Code.
Personally, I adjusted the defaults since I don't like emojis in my PR.
[1]: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/settings#attribution-setting...
I have instructions for these because the attribution settings don't accept placeholder tokens like `<model>`, `<version>` etc.
You're conflating two different things. When an LLM writes a commit, it should take credit. I see nothing wrong with it adding:
> Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 noreply@anthropic.com
Compare that to the message the article is talking about:
> Quickly spin up Copilot coding agent tasks from anywhere on your macOS or Windows machine with Raycast (https://gh.io/cca-raycast-docs).
It's not just mentioning it was written via Copilot, it's explicitly advertising for another product.
I understand what it's doing. I'm just saying that I'll take any signals I can get that someone is lazily submitted LLM-generated work without edit or review.
If you saw this line in a commit, you'd know exactly where it came from.
I get what you're saying, but I disagree that LLMs should be inserting ads into git commits.
By default, the LLM is credited with authorship anyway, and I assume the user can easily just remove the ad, though I don't use Copilot.
I actually like the Claude's Co-Authored-By: line very much. Even in my personal repositories, where I'm the sole author and the sole reader, I would like to know if my older commit I'm looking at was vibe coded, implying possibly lower quality or weird logical issues with the code.
So, my personal rule is: if I implemented a feature with Claude, I'll ask it to commit the code and it will add Co-Authored-By. If I made the change manually, I'll commit it myself.
These are odd takes to me.
> was submitted by someone so lazy they couldn’t even edit the commit message. You can see the vibe coded PRs right away.
As others mentioned, this is very intentional for me now as I use agents. It has nothing to do with laziness, I'm not sure why you would think that? I assume vibe coded PRs are easy enough to spot by the contents alone.
> I would like to know when someone is trying to have the tool do all of their work for them.
What makes you think the LLM is doing _all_ of the work? Is it really an impossibility that an agent does 75% of the work and then a responsible human reviews the code and makes tweaks before opening a PR?
> It has nothing to do with laziness, I'm not sure why you would think that?
Because even with as far as Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.4 have come, they still produce a lot of unwanted, unnecessary, or overly complex code when left to their own devices.
Vibe coding PRs and then submitting them as-is is lazy. Everyone should be reviewing and editing their own PRs before submission.
If you're just vibe coding and submitting, you're passing all of the work on to your team to review your AI's output.
Right, and I agree with all of that, but that's not related to my point.
You are saying "if you leave the AI attribution in the PR/commit description, it HAS to be a slop PR that was not reviewed by a human beforehand". And I'm saying that's not true at all and you shouldn't assume that.
> I would like to know when someone is trying to have the tool do all of their work for them.
Absolutely spot on. Maybe I'm old school, but I never let AI touch my commit message history. That is for me - when 6 months down the line I am looking at it, retracing my steps - affirming my thought process and direction of development, I need absolute clarity. That is also because I take pride in my work.
If you let an AI commit gibberish into the history, that pollution is definitely going to cost you down the line, I will definitely be going "WTF was it doing here? Why was this even approved?" and that's a situation I never want to find myself in.
Again, old man yells at cloud and all, but hey, if you don't own the code you write, who else will?
There will always be room for craftsmen stamping their work, like the expensive Japanese bonsai scissors. Most of the world just uses whatever mass-produced scissors were created by a system of rotating people, with no clear owner/maker. There's plenty of middle ground for systems who put their mark on their product.
Fair enough.
If you architect and review everything, but someone else does the implementation, and you iterate, do you believe you did not do anything? I let AI write the commit message too, and the motivation behind the PR is the first thing in it. With my guidance, of course.
Agreed! Easy close/ban for me.
Get a grip with reality man, if you don’t leverage LLMs in your workflow, you are at an disadvantage
> Get a grip with reality man,
Please read my comment before throwing insults.
My comment literally said I'm not anti-LLM.
I do use LLMs. I do not submit their output as-is. For anything beyond basic changes they rarely output the exact code I want by themselves.
I said I'm against people submitted PRs generated by LLMs and pretending it's their own work. Anyone who is serious about this already edits their code and commit messages first. These little signals give a good tell for who isn't doing that.
[flagged]