Hacker News Reader

Comment by guessmyname | Hacker News Reader

Most people leave the “Co-authored-by: <name>” lines in their Git commits [1]. I’m not sure why exactly, but I suppose it's either laziness or a lack of care. Regardless, if I were Codeberg, that would be the first thing I’d detect, and then I might use a Random Forest Classifier to identify the rest.

[1] https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/how-tos/commit-chan...

View on HN

As other have mentioned, and I'm the same. Leaving "Co-Authored by:" feels like open disclosure of how the project was created.

That way if a consumer does not want to use LLM generated/assisted software, it's easy for them to do that without having to search around in the codebase for "AI Tells".

Removing those would feel like I was mis-representing my coding abilities (LLMs are better at most coding than I am) :)

AGENTS.MD and CLAUDE.MD also provide easy detection avenues. Trivial measures will probably catch 70-80% or more. You don't need a 100% enforcement rate for a rule to exist, indeed there are basically no rules anywhere in the world that achieve that.

Then the linux repo is also banned. I don't think that's a good way to detect "vibe coding"

The Linux repo clearly would be considered vibe-coded by Codeberg policy and it being banned is the policy working as intended.

It is probably a good example of why do many people think that the policy is ultimately counter productive even to Codeberg itself.

Whilst they may provide a strong signal, I wouldn't call it a guarantee. If I wanted to avoid vibe-coded contributions I might add such files, but with instructions for the agents that they're not allowed to read or touch any of the files in the repository.

But that just means they probably used AI to help code, not that it is vibe coded, no?

It does not prove anything. Some could not commit those files to avoid detection, and those files exist in projects in which only some code is AI generated. I have them in projects where, for example, LLMs were used to generate tests and for a few fixes/additions in the rest of the code.

At that point just use whitelist-based approach. I already used gitignore like that. It also easier to avoid committing temp file and secret through whitelist because those file are never in gitignore in the first place.

I feel it's a faux pas to pass off work entirely or partially done with AI as your own. I make sure I leave those lines in specifically for that reason.

Me too, whenever I check in something compiled by a compiler. I always make sure to credit GCC!

I don't usually check in compiled artifacts myself.

I expressly leave them there for transparency and potential future analysis. I'm even working on a coauthor attribution format for work done with Pi agent, as well as when there are multiple models collaborating. If Codeberg wants to gatekeep on AI-generated code, I'll leave them to their tiny niche.

honesty?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com