Likewise. I don’t mind that people use LLMs to generate text and code. But I want any LLM generated stuff to be clearly marked as such. It seems dishonest and cheap to get Claude to write something and then pretend you did all the work yourself.

▲

rogerrogerr 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The reason I want it to be marked as such is because I review AI code differently than human code - it just makes different kinds of mistakes.

	▲	heyethan 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think the issue is less attribution and more review mode. If I assume a change was written and checked line-by-line by the author, I review it one way. If an LLM had a big hand in it, I review it another way.

▲

pxc 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can disclose that you used an LLM in the process of writing code in other ways, though. You can just tell people, you can mention it in the PR, you can mention it in a ticket, etc.

▲

ruraljuror 2 days ago | parent [-]

+1. If we’re at an early stage in the agentic curve where we think reading commit messages is going to matter, I don’t want those cluttered with meaningless boilerplate (“co-authored by my tools!”).

But at this point i am more curious if git will continue to be the best tool.

▲

pxc 2 days ago | parent [-]

I'm only beginning to use "agentic" LLM tools atm because we finally gained access to them at work, and the rest of my team seems really excited about using them.

But for me at least, a tool like Git seems pretty essential for inspecting changes and deciding which to keep, which to reroll, and which to rewrite. (I'm not particularly attached to Git but an interface like Magit and a nice CLI for inspecting and manipulating history seem important to me.)

What are you imagining VCS software doing differently that might play nicer with LLM agents?

	▲	ruraljuror 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Of course git is great! Check out Mitchell Hashimoto’s podcast episode on the pragmatic engineer. He starts talking about AI at 1:16:41. At some point after that he discusses git specifically, and how in some cases it becomes impossible to push because the local branch is always out of date.

▲

dml2135 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So if I use Claude to write the first pass at the code, make a few changes myself, ask it to make an additional change, change another thing myself, then commit it — what exactly do you expect to see then?

▲

m132 2 days ago | parent [-]

A Co-Authored-By tag on the commit. It's a standard practice and the meaning is self-explanatory. This is what Claude adds by default too.

	▲	dml2135 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I make the commits myself, I don't let Claude commit anything.

▲

Fr0styMatt88 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I guess if enough people use it, doesn’t the tag become kind of redundant?

Almost like writing “Code was created with the help of IntelliSense”.

	▲	josephg 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think so. The tag doesn't just say "this was written by an LLM". It says which LLM - which model - authored it. As LLMs get more mature, I expect this information will have all sorts of uses. It'll also become more important to know what code was actually written by humans.