The author is making up a pretext to hide their use of LLMs.
> What about attributions and disclaimers for AI generated work? If you’re concerned being transparent to anyone seeing your work, either create an AI specific account that commits with your name or add a big disclaimer to your project’s readme that this is AI slop and there be dragons.
Hope that helps clarify my stance. :)
It makes it a lot harder to notice how much you're using LLMs, for what gain?
> If you’re concerned being transparent to anyone
Since heavy LLM users are unlikely to have that concern, let's just maintain this default.
I imagine you'd like agents to stop signing commits unless asked to, but that would make even actual vibe coding a lot harder to detect.
I'm toying with this idea where my primary account reflects work I did myself and with an LLM agent but I slowed down enough to understand what it did. Where I feel comfortable enough to put my name against that work. Because a lot of AI generated code turns out to be really embarassing and my primary account should portray the best of me.
A secondary account to separate the slop. And by default it can be assumed I didn't really spend much time verifying it all and am going more on "vibes". Eventually work from the AI account may make it into the primary account if its unslop'ed ever.
I haven't yet gone on to create an ai account, but might just do so.
> I imagine you'd like agents to stop signing commits unless asked to, but that would make even actual vibe coding a lot harder to detect.
In the context of $DAY_JOB, I don't think it matters anymore. And 99.99% of the commits is AI assisted / authored, so I find that information both redundant and something that takes away my agency from me. Putting my name on a commit means I take pride in it and that I want to ensure that I did my utmost best to verify it. With an LLM's co-author tag, I find myself slipping easily instead on this metric.
> In the context of $DAY_JOB, I don't think it matters anymore
I meant mosyly for open-source projects, but if in your $DAY_JOB you (occasionally) use AI much more than your colleagues, it would matter very much.
Especially for those who will come after you.
> And 99.99% of the commits is AI assisted / authored
I'm extremely sad that your job is like this. Keep in mind that it might be specific to your location.
If in the company everyone uses AI a lot, AI co-signing can sure be redundant.
> something that takes away my agency from me. Putting my name on a commit means I take pride in it and that I want to ensure that I did my utmost best to verify it. With an LLM's co-author tag, I find myself slipping easily instead on this metric.
If an LLM co-author really makes you be more sloppy and get away with more in your company, avoiding it could indeed make sense.
The best solution, for that specific situation, could indeed be making a dedicated account (or more than one), and explaining in its profile how you're going to use it ("This account will make heavy use of AI with xy models, but I'll review all the code carefully and take responsibility for it").
That account could be a co-signer, though, instead of the only signer; but for this situation it probably wouldn't make a lot of difference.
I mean we're all using AI at my $DAY_JOB, yes. But I'm still responsible for the change itself. And I'm the first reviewer of all that work before it even becomes a PR.
Edit: at my $DAY_JOB