| ▲ | yankohr 6 hours ago |
| This feels like the modern version of 'Sent from my iPhone' but much more invasive. Git commits are legal and technical records. Falsifying who authored a piece of code just to pump up AI usage stats is a huge breach of trust and it is disappointing to see Microsoft prioritize branding over the integrity of the developer's log.
I expect my IDE to record what happened, not what the marketing department wants people to think happened..... |
|
| ▲ | tln 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Absolutely, messing with commits is more invasive than messages. It gets worse: "Sent from my iPhone" appears in the authoring view, and you can delete it. Co-authored-by: NEVER appears in the commit message UI - it is added without the user even seeing it. |
|
| ▲ | Esophagus4 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And also those early Spotify days where Spotify would automatically post what you’re listening to to your Facebook wall. I’ve always seen that practice of using the user as your recommendation lever without their consent as unethical. |
|
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | polski-g 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Good point. That fake commit addendum means that the entire commit contents would not be under copyright protection. AI generated code is not currently copyrightable. |
| |
| ▲ | bdangubic 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Not that simple… this is great read: https://legallayer.substack.com/p/who-owns-the-claude-code-w... | | |
| ▲ | bjt 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Still if you're the lawyer on the side of the lawsuit claiming that the code is copyrightable, you really don't want that copilot attribution in the commit message muddying the waters. |
| |
| ▲ | whattheheckheck 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Is thos actually decided yet? Closest thing was the image generation cases. What's your go to source for this? | |
| ▲ | hirvi74 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Outside this instance, how can one prove code was AI generated beyond a reasonable doubt? Also, do you (or anyone else) know how much AI/copied-code has to be modified for it to be considered independent? If AI generates code, and one just renames some variables/method signatures, then what? | | |
| ▲ | tyre 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > how can one prove code was AI generated beyond a reasonable doubt? Subpoena the provider they use. Even if they don’t retain the full context, they have to save API calls for billing and analytics. If you’re clauding for the hour up to and after the commit, one can reasonably assume you built it with (if not exclusively by) AI. |
| |
| ▲ | jiveturkey 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It doesn't mean that. A Co-Authored-By header isn't a legal signature or legal assertion of AI generated code. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | Gibbon1 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| One could argue that Co-Authored by Copilot means 'not under copyright' |
| |
| ▲ | Aurornis 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The headline literally says the line is being inserted regardless of usage, which makes it easy to argue that it’s entirely meaningless as an indicator of AI use at all. | | |
| ▲ | Gibbon1 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you can get AI to write your slop is it really socially valuable enough to justify copyright? Even before AI copyrighting software was questionable. | | |
| |
| ▲ | VanTheBrand 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah the current guidance from US copyright office is that if it were said to be solely authored by copilot it would not be eligible for copyright. If it were said to be solely authored by human A (who happened to use co-pilot) the elements and arrangement of it not generated by co-pilot would be copyrightable. I’m not sure the copyright office has released guidance on attempting to register AI as a co-author I assume the registration would be rejected but you’d be able to re-submit as sole Human author. |
|
