The manifesto is somehow devoid of coherent arguments. You are still personally listed as the author of your commits, adding a co-author is not a mechanism for moving all accountability to that co-author. That's not what a co-author is.
I suspect the author of the website forgot to include in their prompt why they actually dislike AI Co-Author attributions. Or maybe they just have really bad colleagues
And that's while there are plenty of good reasons not to list the AI as co-author. I stopped letting Claude include it
Funny story: I made this because despite having the global no-attribution setting turned on, Claude still regularly tags itself.
I'm sure it's a context thing — but boy is it annoying.
When I read the title, I thought it would be for research papers.
Broken on mobile, and clearly written by an AI co-author.
This sounds like Claude from a mile away
“It strikes the tool. It keeps the person.
Matching runs on both the display name and the email, normalized — so a renamed bot or a numeric noreply address doesn’t slip through. A human is never in the blast radius.”
I can confirm, this is how Adam talks.
it is actually very ironic. You can manually commit your code to easily hide you had a co-author.
AI Co-authors are impressive marketing, but deleterious to dev work.
This manifesto website includes a git commit-msg hook for your favorite hook manager, and a GitHub Action for preventing contributions containing them from landing in your project.
Ironic this website has AI written all over it.
AI can't be accountable therefore AI cannot be the author.