Isn’t this a kind of “leopards ate my face” situation? I thought we had all “agreed” that letting AI write code and take control of software repositories is good, even if we have no idea what is going on beyond a thin surface layer, because well it’s fast and we can fix it later and lol who needs testing? My customers are my testers.

And now it’s suddenly bad because the developer is the customer?

▲

tln 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The sneaky commit modification is triggered by very modest usage of AI such as auto-completion.

Look, if an agent writes the code and the commit message then adding a Co-authored-by by default is ok. Not even showing it before the commit is made is not, and adding the message when AI was just completing code is not.

▲

bojan 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I genuinely think it's not ok even then. Copilot is a tool, one of many I use. That tool has no business polluting commit messages without my knowledge.

The appended message isn't even adding any new information, as in this day and age a vast majority of commits is probably "co-authored" by an LLM.

	▲	tln 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I should have been clearer, the hidden addition is never ok. If I ask Claude to write a commit message, it will inserted a co-author line (and an ad), but I can see it and disapprove, add a counter instruction to CLAUDE.md etc

▲

AlienRobot 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Glorified autocomplete, syntax reminder and random snippet generator thinks it's co-authoring things.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]