If you accept the code generated by them nearly verbatim, absolutely.

I don't understand why people consider Claude-generated code to be their own. You authored the prompts, not the code. Somehow this was never a problem with pre-LLM codegen tools, like macro expanders, IPC glue, or type bundle generators. I don't recall anybody desperately removing the "auto-generated do not edit" comments those tools would nearly always slap at the top of each file or taking offense when someone called that code auto-generated. Back in the day we even used to publish the "real" human-written source for those, along with build scripts!

It's weird, because they should not consider it as their own, but they should take accountability from it.

Ideally, if I contribute to any codebase, what needs to be judged is the resulting code. Is it up to the project's standards ? Does the maintainer have design objections ?

What tool you use shouldn't matter, be it your IDE or your LLM.

But that also means you should be accountable for it, you shouldn't defend behind "But Claude did this poorly, not me !", I don't care (in a friendly way), just fix the code if you want to contribute.

The big caveat to this is not wanting AI-Generated code for ideological reasons, and well, if you want that you can make your contributors swear they wrote it by themselves in the PR text or whatever.

I'm not really sure how to feel about this, but I stand by my "the code is what matters" line.

Some differences with the human source for those kinds of tools: (1) the resultant generated code was deterministic (2) it was usually possible to get access to the exact version of the tool that generated it

Since AI tools are constantly obsoleted, generate different output each run, and it is often impossible to run them locally, the input prompts are somewhat useless for everyone but the initial user.