If those tools are writing the code then in general I do expect that to be included in the PR! Through my whole career I've seen PRs where people noted that code that was generated (people have been generating code since long before LLMs). It's useful context unless you've gone over the generated code and understand it and it is the same quality as if you wrote it yourself (which in my experience is the case where it's obvious boilerplate or the generated section is small).

Needing to flag nontrivial code as generated was standard practice for my whole career.

▲

sumeno 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It's useful context unless you've gone over the generated code and understand it and it is the same quality as if you wrote it yourself

If this is not the case you should not be sending it to public repos for review at all. It is rude and insulting to expect the people maintaining these repos to review code that nobody bothered to read.

	▲	__float 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sometimes code generation is a useful tool, and maybe people have read and reviewed the generator. The difference here is that the generator is a non-deterministic LLM and you can't reason about its output the same way.

▲

zx8080 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If those tools are writing the code then in general I do expect that to be included in the PR!

How about compiler?

▲

thechao 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You assemble all your machine code using a magnetized needle?

▲

tdb7893 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I am not against the general use of AI code. Quite simply, my view is that all relevant context for a review should be disclosed in the PR.

AI and humans are not the same as authors of PRs. As an obvious example: one of the important functions of the PR process is to teach the writer about how to code in this project but LLMs fundamentally don't learn the same way as humans so there's a meaningful difference in context between humans and AIs.

If a human takes the care to really understand and assume authorship of the PR then it's not really an issue (and if they do, they could easily modify the Claude messages to remove "generated by Claude" notes manually) but instead it seems that Claude is just hiding relevant context from the reviewer. PRs without relevant context are always frustrating.

▲

Wowfunhappy 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You don't generally commit compiled code to your VCS. If you do need to commit a binary for whatever reason, yeah it makes sense to explain how the binary was generated.

▲

jasomill 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Don't be silly.

I use good ol' C-x M-c M-butterfly.

https://xkcd.com/378/

	▲	djmips 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sometimes using AI to code feels closer to a Butterfly than emacs right?