Whether the distinction matters or not, it would be nice for everyone involved if projects falling into the second category were more upfront about that.
When I commit I either mark it as my own commit if I've read through every line of that commit at least once (not skimmed), pushed back, changed, etc, or put as "ai@<a word I use>" if it was mostly "fine, do it…" or the "whatever… " phase. I never let AI write a single word of documentation or comment. And I made sure Claude removed its attribution the first time I started using it. Besides I was using GLM 5.2 at that time so Claude was not a fit anyway. I don't think they should have that default behaviour.
What's needed is more of a nexus thing where there's evidence multiple people work together or some long track record of someone scratching a very specific itch. Or if we're all using agents to build the same thing some way for them to team up. It's a sort of proof of life thing and it's difficult to distinguish those from flashes in the pan.
I can look for myself and see that the repo was started a week ago and has had hundreds of commits since, and that the author exclusively talks about ai on twitter. I'd just like it if I could save myself some time, and it would prevent useless discussions in this thread were people argue whether the commit-messages look like ai.