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
I don't know why you wouldn't want to track this information.
“Co-authored by Copilot” gives a multi billion dollar corp free advertising. I don’t care about them. I do care about Joe though.
There's also the named authors not taking credit for something they didn't fully do, regardless of whether the credit goes to someone else.
There's also traceability, if the authors/provenance needs to be considered because of some kind of problem or potential problem -- technical, legal, security, or otherwise.
Advertising in git commits is not ever going to substantially discredit these people or hold them accountable.
How could it possibly be product placement? It's got electrolytes!
Case in point, I have no way to know if dylan604 is even a real human at this point.
What's the problem with the approach?
(The first sentence isn't a joke.)
The fact that it's just a tool is irrelevant. You don't need to mention search and replace because everyone already knows that exists... mind you I have had commit messages which included sed commandlines, for ease of future reuse.
You have to let people know where your ideas are supported, or even come from.
To do anything else is plagiarism.
AI isn't a co-contributer - but it should be referenced - just like a link to a Stack Overflow comment when that's the source of code.
Having AI referenced in the commit is (IMO) best practice - but only co-contributer attributes are available (for now)
Right now you could run Laravel new app (replace with any new framework) and Claude/Cursor/Codex git commit will claim to of created the code.
/*
* NOTE: This class is auto generated by OpenAPI Generator (https://openapi-generator.tech).
* Do not edit the class manually.
*/
No. So, same goes for ai
It's not in the git commit, it's in the files themselves - is that what you want for AI instead?
But of course, owning an iPhone early on was seen as prestigious. Using an LLM is... not? Many people really don't want the world to know. For blogs in particular, the urge to have an LLM generate the entire thing and then post it under your name seems to be really difficult to resist.
This is the second or third HN post I'm seeing this month along the lines of "how dare AI companies flag my code as AI-generated". I just don't remember similar complaints about the iPhone footer. Not many HNers complain about The North Face putting the text "The North Face" on their hoodies either. Or Honda putting their logo on the car.
The reasons for this difference are interesting. The fact that companies put their logos / brands on stuff is a lot less interesting to me. You can call it bad, but again, why is this instance worse?
Plenty of people don’t like logos. And some do, because they tie their identity with brands. Maybe in the future some of us will tie our identities to specific agents/LLMs.
To each their own. I don’t have clothing with logos, I find it gross. And you also don’t know I’ve sent you an email from an iPhone. Ça va.