> In my view, adding an LLM as co-author gives you a way for you to shirk responsibility for mistakes – even if a little bit. You can say, oops sorry this happened because it did its thing and it was not careful. And that is exactly the behaviour I want to guard against. If a piece of work is under my name, I own it. Fully.

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.

I agree about the aspect about shirking responsibility, but...

>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.

I immediately prohibited Claude and other agents from adding themselves as co-authors. I have never liked this.

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.

im concerned it ever caught on at all. not only is it free advertising that devalues your work in the eyes of some, but also indicates you let a harness write to git in the first place

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.

The author is making up a pretext to hide their use of LLMs.

I should barely be listed as a co-author on what Claude does for me. Hiding Claude's contribution feels about as true as a combover to me.

I agree with you as it is rightly put as you say. The thing is that the proprietary generated code is marked anyway, so you want it or not, even as a paid customer you don´t get to choose that. The big question is: Is all the "AI" generated content infected or just marked?

I used claude to handle a git commit for me (I wrote the code myself, but used Claude just for git -- I prefer fossil so never bothered to learn git command line) and it took credit for doing nothing but the commit.

Ask a contractor/tradie what brand their power tools are and they won’t shutup.

They also don’t sign their work because we don’t want them to.

If you’re too lazy to write your own code, at least let others know as such.

The trouble with AI attribution is that there are basically three categories:

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.

i kind of disagree. people do credit the tools they use. in movies for example. not always, but it happens. so why not with software too?

> you have to use it at work unless you want to go out the door

Why people are so compelled to gospel about their saviors to others? Why tech became a cult?

Okay that was always allowed

the core issue with commit message LLM attributions is related to copyright laws, which of course is currently very “gray area.” in several projects I am involved in and in talking to friends/former colleagues, the mandates to add attibution is largely about ability to copyright/protect vs. anything else that is distant second

The problem is that LLM users are extremely unlikely to check all their output with enough care.

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.

related/front of HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49498201

Omg that is brave af! I am literally shaking rn like on the verge of crying god bless you fr

This is the way