Claude never used to do this but at some point it started adding itself by default as a co-author on every commit.
Literally, in the last week, Codex started making all it's branches as "codex-feature-name", and will continue to do so, even if you tell it to never do that again.
Really, really annoying.
Now, with the power of math letting us recall business plans and code bases with no mention of copyright or where the underlying system got that code (like paying a foreign company to give me the kernel with my name replacing Linus’, only without the shame…), we are letting MS and other corps enter into coding automation and oopsie the name of their copyright-obfuscation machine?
Maybe it’s all crazy and we flubbed copyright fully, but having third party authorship stamps cryptographically verified in my repo sounds risky. The SCO thing was a dead companies last gasp, dying animals do desperate things.
[[skills.config]]
name = "github:yeet"
enabled = false
Plugins are a new feature as of this past week, so Codex "helpfully" installs the GitHub one automatically if you have GitHub connected.
response from timrogers (product manager at github):
"Tim from the Copilot coding agent team here. We've now disabled these tips in pull requests created by or touched by Copilot, so you won't see this happen again for future PRs.
We've been including product tips in PRs created by Copilot coding agent. The goal was to help developers learn new ways to use the agent in their workflow. But hearing the feedback here, and on reflection, this was the wrong judgement call. We won't do something like this again.
"They (Microsoft / GitHub) will do it again. Do not be fooled.
Never ever trust them because their words are completely empty and they will never change.
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.
Personally, I adjusted the defaults since I don't like emojis in my PR.
[1]: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/settings#attribution-setting...
> 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.
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'd be thanking the reserve and the people who made it, and credit myself with the small action of slightly moving my hand as much as its worth.
Also, text editors would be a better analogy if the commit message referenced whether it was created in the web ui, tui, or desktop app.
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.
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).
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.
Why is this, though? I'm genuinely curious. My code-quality bar doesn't change either way, so why would this be anything but distracting to my decision making?
With AI I have no way of telling if it was from a one line prompt or hundreds. I have to assume it was one line by default if there's no human sticking their neck out for it.
Mostly this is because, all things considered, I really do not need to interact with any of that, so I'm doing it by choice. Since it's entirely voluntary I have absolutely no incentive to interact with things no one bothered to spend real time and effort on.
Outside of your one personal project, it can also benefit you to understand the current tendencies and limitations of AI agents, either to consider whether they're in a state that'd be useful to use for yourself, or to know if there are any patterns in how they operate (or not, if you're claiming that).
Burying your head in the sand and choosing to be a guinea pig for AI companies by reviewing all of their slop with the same care you'd review human contributions with (instead of cutting them off early when identified as problematic) is your prerogative, but it assumes you're fine being isolated from the industry.
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?
Of course most people don’t do that
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.
>Developers would react extremely negatively. This would be seen as 1. A massive breach of trust. 2. Unprofessional and disruptive. 3. A security/integrity concern. 4. Career-ending for the product. The backlash would likely be swift and severe.
Sometimes AI can be right.
Sent from Firefox on AlmaLinux 9. https://getfirefox.com https://almalinux.org
--------------
Sent from HackerNews Supreme™ - the best way to browse the Y Combinator Hacker News. Now on macOS, Windows, Linux, Android, iOS, and SONY BRAVIA Smart TV. Prices starting at €13.99 per month, billed yearly. https://hacker-news-supreme.io
This message brought to you by TempleOS
One thing I do like, however, is how agents add themselves as co-authors in commit messages. Having a signal for which commits are by hand and which are by agent is very useful, both for you and in aggregate (to see how well you are wielding AI, and the quality of the code being generated).
Even when I edit the commit message, I still leave in the Claude co-author note.
AI coding is a new skill that we're all still figuring out, so this will help us develop best practices for generating quality code.
And selfishly — I'd rather not run into a scenario where my boss pulls up GitHub, sees Claude credited for hundreds of commits, and then he impulsively decides that perhaps Claude's doing the real work here and that we could downsize our dev team or replace with cheaper, younger developers.
What you're doing would fundamentally be similar to copyright theft, using 'someone' else's code without attributing them (it?) to avoid repercussions
Obviously the morals and ethics of not attributing an LLM vs an actual human vary. I am not trying to simp for the machines here.
As for hobby projects, I strongly encourage you to not care. You aren't going to lawyer up to sue anybody, nor is anybody going to sue you, so YOLO. Do whatever satisfies you.
Whoever is submitting the code is still responsible for it, why would the reviewer care if you wrote it with your fingers or if an LLM wrote (parts of) it? The quality+understanding bar shouldn't change just because "oh idk claude wrote this part". You don't get extra leeway just because you saved your own time writing the code - that fact doesn't benefit me/the project in any way.
Likewise, leaving AI attribution in will probably have the opposite effect as well, where a perfectly good few lines of code gets rejected because some reviewer saw it was claude and assumed it was slop. Neither of these cases seems helpful to anyone (obviously its not like AI can't write a single useable line of code).
The code is either good or it isn't, and you either understand it or you don't. Whether you or claude wrote it is immaterial.
Maybe one day we can say that, but currently, it matters a lot to a lot of people for many reasons.
That was my point here, it is a false signal in both directions.
For instance, I would want any AI generated video showing real people to have a disclaimer. Same way we have disclaimers when tv ads note if the people are actors or not with testimonials and the like. That is not only not false, but is actually a useful signal.
Claude-generated code is sufficient—it works, it's decent quality—but it still isn't the same as human written code. It's just minor things, like redundant comments that waste context down the road, tests that don't test what they claim to test, or React components that reimplement everything from scratch because Claude isn't aware of existing component libraries' documentation.
But more importantly, I expect humans to be able to stand by their code, and at times defend against my review. But today's agents continue to sycophantically treat review comments like prompts. I once jokingly commented on a line using a \u escape sequence to encode an em dash, how LLMs would do anything to sneak them in, and the LLM proceeded to replace all — with --. Plus, agents do not benefit from general coding advice in reviews.
Ultimately, at least with today's Claude, I would change my review style for a human vs an agent.
As you allude to (and i agree), any non-trivial quantity of code, if SOLELY written by claude will probably be low-quality, but this is apparent whether I know its AI beforehand or not.
I am admittedly coming at this as much more of an AI-hater than many, but I still don't really get why I'd care about how-much or how-little you used AI as a standalone metric.
The people who are using AI "well" are the ones producing code where you'd never even guess it involved AI. I'm sure theres linux kernel maintainers using claude here and there, its not like they expect to have their patches merged because "oh well i just used claude here don't worry about that part".
(But also yes, of course I'm not going to talk to claude about your PR, I will only talk to you, the human contributor, and if you don't know whats up with the PR then into the trash it goes!)
> We've disabled it already. Basically it was giving product tips which was kinda ok on Copilot originated PR's but then when we added the ability to have Copilot work on _any_ PR by mentioning it the behaviour became icky. Disabled product tips entirely thanks to the feedback.
> Disabled product tips entirely thanks to the feedback.
This sounds like they are saying “thanks for your input!”, when really it feels more like “if you didn’t go out of your way to complain, we would have left it in forever!”
Ads implies someone was paying for them. Promoting internal product features is not the same thing - if it was then every piece of software that shows a tip would be an ad product, and would be regulated as such.
8 years later, this is where we are. I'm honestly just stunned, it takes some real talent to run a company that does it as consistently well as Microsoft.
I would bet that soon it will inject ads within the code as comments.
Imagine you are reading the code of a class. `LargeFileHandler`. And within the code they inject a comment with an ad for penis enlargement.
The possibilities are limitless.
Will our agents just be proxies for garbage like injected marketing prompts?
I feel like this is going to be an existential moment for advertising that ultimately will lead to intrusive opportunities like this.
1.5M PRs is wild though. that's a lot of repos where the "product tips" just sat there unchallenged because nobody reads bot-generated PR descriptions carefully enough. which is kinda the real problem here, not the ads themselves.
dboreham•1h ago
sunaookami•1h ago
da_grift_shift•46m ago