People should be doing this regardless of drama. No reason to provide free advertising for trillion dollar corporations. Generated-by trailers are only relevant when contributing to third party projects, in that case disclosure is polite.
I don't care about the advertising angle. We all know Claude by now. I want some indicator that AI was used.
The tag is helpful because AI authorship is different than the human authorship. When you work with a project or team for long enough you start to trust certain people and their intuition, but when they start submitting AI-produced code you have to reset and review it like AI code.
I use these tools a lot, too. But I want to know where the code came from so I can review it accordingly. The source matters.
> Ostracize us?
I don't know why you're so defensive. If AI wrote the code just be honest about it.
If you outsourced the code writing to some guy named Bob on Fiverr, I'd want to know that too.
Check it out:
https://lobste.rs/s/29pm2f/llm_generated_submissions_should_...
https://lobste.rs/s/ytim7h/collection_small_low_stakes_low_e...
In the absence of such an entitlement, not volunteering to disclose the tools used is not fraud.
If LLM generates some code but I edit it, does it become my own work? How much editing must be done?
How large is "largely" ? Exactly how many bits of information must come from my fingers tapping the keyboard in order for me to qualify for authorship? Be precise.
If I write something but the LLM polishes it up a bit, is it still my work? Or is it AI generated?
I'm not going to define substantive for you. That's something you should feel obligated to research and learn about yourself; anything less is dishonest.
So "consider copyright" isn't really strengthening your position.
There are some precedents and rulings related to copyright and AI, so we have at least some rubric by which "authorship" can be determined. But when it comes to AI doing polishing of existing code - that is less certain.
As I said, disclosure is polite when contributing code to third party projects which will undergo human review.
No need for such things in one's own projects.
This can be largely assumed to be true for any open source code. It's kinda the point of open source.
If there's one thing I learned not to do in open source, it's to assume nonsense like that.
Even with coding agents gaining popularity, many humans still look at the code at some point.
But you and others in this thread seem hellbent on stigmatizing it to the point you take it as evidence of someone's incompetence. So I'm not at all sympathetic to your "requirements".
That's really all anyone's asking of you: enough respect for your fellow programmers that you avoid pre-judging them. If you can't do that, then what do we care about your "requirements"?
why do you so many people want to hide who the real author is?
we should be very weary of anyone claiming they’re the author of something when they’re absolutely not. if jon wrote a book and i take credit, that’s shady as hell.
because no person can read every line of code written in software they use, or track every commit made to a project. Integrity and authorship matters. If a person lies or obfuscates the origin of what they produce, an article, software, what have you they're doing it for a reason, otherwise they would be honest. That's not prejudice, that's recognizing deceit. And you don't eat fruit from a rotten tree.
Ask Claude to do it for you.
> they're doing it for a reason
And you concluded that the reason was they were pretenders who can't hack it.
That's your prejudice. Not interested in helping you categorize me, thanks.
I don't see a need for an attribution line in this case.
This is fucking insane. How does this correlate with productivity in any way? The results are all that matters, who cares how you got there?
> The results are all that matters, who cares how you got there?
That's what I can't for the life of me figure out. Bad code is bad code regardless of who is writing it. Adding a disclaimer about how it was written is meaningless. Hell, it could say "Written by the Easter bunny" and that would have 0 impact on it's utility.
I think many people in this camp have political or ethical concerns and want to avoid contributing to or supporting the companies behind frontier-AI tools. Or they have moral or technical concerns and want to boycott usage to maintain their principles.
It should be fairly widely known at this point.
> The value of the Claude attribution is that you can tell at a glance who used AI.
Specifies none of that, which is why I was asking the question.
> technical concerns
Which is exactly why I asked what I did. What technical concerns could possibly exist if the code is good? What does adding that attribution remove or add to technical concerns that you can't already see from the code itself?
I know my personal choice doesn’t make much of a difference but I refuse to own a car. I advocate at my local city council to remove car storage from streets, remove parking minimums, add better transit, make the core of our city car-free. It sometimes feels easier to join in and just accept that this is the way of the world but I refuse to believe in inevitability: building cities for the benefit of cars is a choice.
Maybe some folks want to avoid AI code because they don’t want to make that choice?
I can’t say for them. But I do know there’s no sense pretending like they don’t have a point or feigning shock that someone might not have the same view as you do.
I asked a simple question: What technical concerns could possibly exist if the code is good?
I made it very clear I wasn't talking about personal, political, or ethical arguments.
> But I do know there’s no sense pretending like they don’t have a point or feigning shock that someone might not have the same view as you do.
Where am I feigning shock? Are you reading the right comment thread before you're replying?
Maybe I was reading too much into this part of your comment.
Plenty of folks don’t separate the ethical, political, or moral from the technology. For them using it is condoning it. Like for me, owning a car is contributing to car culture. It might be inconvenient for me or seem backwards to others but it’s worth resisting. They want to know that something was written with AI so they can avoid supporting AI or condoning its use.
- Sent from my iPhone
I use Linux, btw.
— Sent from my iPhone