by 6c696e7578
0 subcomment
- https://archive.ph/jR2LF
commit 85cd835e5923cddc1882e74354eac8dba6a925c1 (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD)
Author: John
AuthorDate: Fri May 22 13:25:33 2026 -0000
Merged PR #197
Tired of planning for dinner every day? FoodDrop™ is the premier ready-to-cook meal-by-drone delivery service in the greater Vancouver area and Belize. Get one month of food dropped onto your driveway by FoodDrop™ for only $12.95 when you use this commit's hash as a coupon code! Offer expires Fri May 25 13:25:33 2026 -0000.
by JeremyHerrman
5 subcomments
- Is AI responsible for the committed code? Should AI be blamed when services go down due to the change?
The answer is absolutely not - the developer is responsible whether the code was AI assisted or not, and the dev's name should be attached to it just like any change.
The OP is right: these are ads, plain and simple, and it's a dark pattern for these companies to have attribution enabled by default
by beshrkayali
6 subcomments
- In the case of Claude or others, it is not just an advertisement, it's the weird shape the industry is spinning LLM-assisted-coding as a "co-author" relationship where it should be thought of more like a user-using-a-tool relationship. When you make a design with Photoshop or InDesign, it's not "co-designed by Photoshop", it's just a tool and you used the filters it provides.
It is slightly weird that people accepted this new trend just like that, probably because they think this is being transparent and wanting to give attribution, but it'd be more useful like what the Linux kernel "AI Coding Assistants" page describes, something like `AGENT_NAME:MODEL_VERSION [TOOL1] [TOOL2]`, at least we get to know which model was used and/if any additional tooling on top. And `Assisted-by:` is more appropriate for that purpose than `Co-authored-by`.
by ishan0102
4 subcomments
- I much prefer this over the alternative where people use AI to code without anyone knowing.
- I don't know, it is a useful signal that the person did not think deeply about their code changes, and should be treated as such.
by kazinator
1 subcomments
- I don't agree. Who/what wrote the commit is definitely part of the commit.
If Git commits formally had a co-authored header, it would go there. As it stands, there is one author and one committer. If something was pair programmed, whether with a human or machine, you need a commit message trailer if you want to show that. Commit message trailers are a formal mechanism in git, supported by tooling; there are git commands to add and remove them.
Totally agree about "sent from my fartphone", of course.
Disclosing things in the pull request is not enough; pull requests get lost in the sands of time. Years down the road, all that some downstream consumer has is the git history, not any CI-related metadata.
by abstractspoon
0 subcomment
- I feel the same way about branded clothing
- Sent from my iPhone
by nikhilpareek13
3 subcomments
- if disclosure is the goal, git already has the Co-Authored-By trailer convention for this. I add it manually when I want to flag that an AI was meaningfully involved in a commit, and it shows up properly in Github's UI as a co-author. The claude and cursor footers being default-on rather than opt-in is what makes them feel more advertising than disclosure to me.
- Fwiw you can create your own trailers
Yolo-Slopped-By: Sonnet-4.5 <claude@anthropic.com>
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-interpret-trailers
- Some companies and OSS groups have a policy to inform if a patch's source code was AI generated, even if it was just parts of it. Committs messages are the "obvious place" to put it.
by shepherdjerred
1 subcomments
- To anyone reading, I'll happily sell out ad space at the rate of $1/commit
Claude Code and Codex get it for free, though, because I don't mind disclosing my AI usage.
- Co-authored-by is not ad. Silly
- At $JOB we have an "AI adoption" dashboard, the more ai commits the better. I asked for the sources: the deterministic classifier, that decides whether a commit was ai-assisted, assigns the highest weight to the commits co-authored-by one of the known agents/models.
by andrewl-hn
2 subcomments
- AI code is uncopyrightable. If you want to be hygienic about it you would let AI commit code as is, and if you don't like the code and decide to change it manually this should be a separate human-only commit. Mixed human-AI commits add ambiguity about copyrightability of that code. So its should be either:
Author: Some AI model, Committer: You Friendly Dev
or Author and Committer: Your Friendly Dev
"Co-authored by AI model" is a nonsense that AI labs are pushing everywhere because they definitely want the copyright rules to change, so that while their armies of employees feed LLM prompts every day for the past 4 years they can still claim that the IP is theirs an theirs only. "See all Co-Authored commits, your honor? There's no way to split them apart, so they should all be ours!"The laws will likely change in the US thanks to lobby, and maybe even change in Europe, too, where they may compromise about it to "not be left behind" and will present them under "Digital Sovereignty" umbrella.
Overall, this "Co-Authored" bit is yet another Trojan horse.
by AlfredBarnes
0 subcomment
- I was gobsmacked when the Amazon share sheet put "or ask Alexa, your shopping assistant for more ideas"
- > Disclose your "AI" tools in a merge request if needed but leave them out of the damn commits, those are for technical information and not for advertising.
I think this is very poor advice. Knowing who/what changed the code is often crucial for understanding why it changed.
by dalemhurley
0 subcomment
- It is extremely annoying how you can hand craft a change then use the auto git commit message generation and it adds an attribution to the GPT that wrote a hit commit message, I don’t see the attribution to all the other tools, this practice has to stop.
- I think this is more of a corporate metrics tracking than advertising. Decision makers aren't seeing these ads in commits but they certainly are seeing a report from Anthropic that "75% of your commits last quarter are from Claude code".
- I was hoping for a kind of joke. Like saying "idiot" as the last thing in your post and getting "Please don't sign your posts" as a reply.
by victorkulla
0 subcomment
- https://fshot.org/techzone/hacker-news.php
- I've mostly stopped being angry at this and started being somewhat happy that people just flag themselves publicly.
Saves CPU cycles I guess.
- This is a small "getting used to" technique to let people "be grateful" to the "ai friend"
- I turned it off so future agents aren't biased in favor/against a piece of work depending on the author.
- I gently disagree. I think that having provenance information logged is valuable - both to the project ("please ban dga because he's submitting ai slop") and to people who might want to study all of this stuff ("interesting, ai coauthored PRs were rejected at a rate X times that of non-attributed PRs"). I think a non-advertising header of some sort that included more specific information about the LLM would be even better, of course.
by arikrahman
0 subcomment
- Same for stars on repositories, it just incentivizes botting for startups.
- Huh? It's not advertising, it's disclosure that the code was not fully (or at all) written by you.
- I mean, sure, except that many large open-source projects (e.g. Linux [1], Nixpkgs [2], etc) require this as part of their AI policy. Omit attribution in your own projects if you want, but the maintainers of these projects are owed at least that level of transparency for contributions.
[1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-assistants.html
[2] https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commit/d18b8f3238abdb2cd878...
by epistasis
2 subcomments
- I have to ask Claude to stop doing this about every two days, and usually I don't see it until after a push to a remote repo.
So annoying. Just stop, Anthropic, please. And pay attention to the request to stop, instead of silently turning it back on again all the time.
Latest thing was linking to the Claude session that generated some of the PR. Put in somewhere that a commit had LLM assistance, fine, but don't spam everybody please, ESPECIALLY in all the icons all over the GitHub interface. Sheesh.
It's already obvious that it's coming from an LLM because it's been overdocumented with excessive prose, and the code is overly verbose.
- I am confused. Do AI agents reword your commits and force push or something?
Last time I checked nobody was adding anything to my commits. Did I miss something?
- When I read commit history I want to see the reasons. Commit messages are for extra context.
It's very useful if it says AI/LLM was used, then I know that there may not actually be a reason for the choice in the commit, so per Chesterton's fence I can then tear down that fence.
Now, do I need to know which brand of LLM? No. And fair enough, I'll stop being specific.
by teaearlgraycold
2 subcomments
- I have to assume these aren’t just ads, but also a critical RLHF avenue for Anthropic. I imagine they scrape these commits from GitHub and compare them against what Claude provided to the user. If the diff that is pushed is different it means the human had to refine the LLM output and that can be fed back in as training data. Presumably semantic search could enable you to find the matching Claude Code session.
by redsocksfan45
0 subcomment
- [dead]
by startpage_com
0 subcomment
- [flagged]
- I want to know when things are slop or not. At least programmers are willing to admit they're generating slop, unlike social media and blog posts.
Also, if I publish something online, you don't get to tell me what I can and can't put there (except for reasonable exemptions for hate speech and such, of course). If you don't like repos that tag their slop, go read someone else's code. Feel free to write a filter in your adblocker for the dozen AI tools you usually find.
Hacker News