Unfortunately for the people mad about this, I predict the only thing they will accomplish by pressuring the rsync maintainers, is to discourage everyone else from responsibly disclosing their use of AI. You’re just going to make people disable Claude attribution on their commits to avoid drama.

▲

zzyzxd 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I never care about AI usage disclosure, because I don't believe that human produced code is necessarily better than AI produced code, unless it's someone I personally know.

People need to be responsible for code they commit and push anyways. This has never changed. Whether the code is written by hand, by their cat walking over keyboard, or by AI, is not my concern.

A project's code quality can decline for all kinds of reasons. I don't think it's productive to laser-focus on whether it's produced by AI or not. That's a distraction. If a person just want to find excuse to criticize AI, and another person wants to fight back and defend AI, sure, go for it. But that's not how you would want to assess a project's code quality.

	▲	calvinmorrison an hour ago \| parent [-]
		something as simple as requiring sign-offs like the DCO maybe relevant to people who care. I do think the driveby stuff may get smaller. People dont need to get stuff upstream. I have lots of patches I am keeping downmstrea and instead have a trigger system when new packages updates drop into debian and i rebuild the package with my patches on top using quill. Other systems like gentoo basically always supported this flow. So - why bother forking or going upstream? maybe its selfish. I think publishing the patches are cool but I feel less of a need to force other people into doing what I want or even writing every possible configuration or solution. I just hack it for me

▲

matheusmoreira 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> You’re just going to make people disable Claude attribution on their commits to avoid drama.

People should be doing this regardless of drama. No reason to provide free advertising for trillion dollar corporations. Generated-by trailers are only relevant when contributing to third party projects, in that case disclosure is polite.

▲

Aurornis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The value of the Claude attribution is that you can tell at a glance who used AI.

I don't care about the advertising angle. We all know Claude by now. I want some indicator that AI was used.

▲

matheusmoreira an hour ago | parent [-]

And why do you want to know that? So you can call our projects slop? Ostracize us?

▲

Hammershaft an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Because LLMs are not humans, and the code they produce will have a different distribution of failure modes than human written code, so attribution is useful info while reviewing?

▲

matheusmoreira 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

> while reviewing

As I said, disclosure is polite when contributing code to third party projects which will undergo human review.

No need for such things in one's own projects.

▲

Groxx 29 minutes ago | parent [-]

>which will undergo human review

This can be largely assumed to be true for any open source code. It's kinda the point of open source.

▲

matheusmoreira 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

Nope. It cannot be assumed at all. Maintainer could just as easily tell Claude to review the hand written code you sent instead of spending any effort on it. Maintainer could sit on the patch for months on end only to swoop in later and rewrite it instead of engaging with you, thereby erasing your contribution and attribution. Maintainer could just ignore you entirely despite the pervasive "patches welcome" attitude.

If there's one thing I learned not to do in open source, it's to assume nonsense like that.

	▲	Groxx 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I'm referring to the fact that "open source" quite literally means "readable by humans [and machines]", and anything beyond that is a subject of debate. There are more users than readers in nearly all cases, but being able to read the code as a user is a significant benefit at times, and it's one of the reasons it's such a large ecosystem in terms of both users and contributors. (it usually being free is another big reason, of course) Even with coding agents gaining popularity, many humans still look at the code at some point.

▲

ezst 16 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Some people prefer organic grown food for all kinds of reasons, does it matter to you they would want the same for code? (Also, I'm not picking a side here)

	▲	matheusmoreira 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It matters when I'm contributing to their projects. In that case I'll go out of my way to be polite and learn their rules.

▲

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

So that the AI model that generated code can get proper credit and we'll know to use (or not use it) next time.

	▲	matheusmoreira an hour ago \| parent [-]
		That's not at all what someone who wants to "tell at a glance who used AI" actually wants to know.

▲

Aurornis an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You don't need an AI attribution tag to recognize slop. In my experience reviewing PRs, the slop-pushers are most aggressive about stripping the AI attribution anyway. It's the normal devs who use a little bit of AI who leave it in.

The tag is helpful because AI authorship is different than the human authorship. When you work with a project or team for long enough you start to trust certain people and their intuition, but when they start submitting AI-produced code you have to reset and review it like AI code.

I use these tools a lot, too. But I want to know where the code came from so I can review it accordingly. The source matters.

> Ostracize us?

I don't know why you're so defensive. If AI wrote the code just be honest about it.

If you outsourced the code writing to some guy named Bob on Fiverr, I'd want to know that too.

▲

matheusmoreira an hour ago | parent [-]

> I don't know why you're so defensive.

Check it out:

https://lobste.rs/s/29pm2f/llm_generated_submissions_should_...

https://lobste.rs/s/ytim7h/collection_small_low_stakes_low_e...

▲

Aurornis 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

I'm not interesting in joining into some argument you're having with someone on lobste.rs

	▲	matheusmoreira 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You're not supposed to join. You said you didn't know why I was defensive. I showed you those posts as evidence of the stigma attached to LLMs and their usage. Now you know why.

▲

julianeon 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If Claude is actually good enough to commit to rsync, of course I'm going to look at that and think "it's good enough for my side project too." And (benefit to companies aside) that is info it is useful to know, if it's true.

▲

amiga386 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, this is why it's obnoxious and this is why scummy marketers do it. If you don't aggressively turn it off, they leech an implicit endorsement out of you.

- Sent from my iPhone

	▲	AnotherGoodName an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Alto hug the iphone sigoff is hilaripus sonce fhe meyboard is so bad it always comes across asa an ask doe forgivebeds — Sent from my iPhone
	▲	AlienRobot an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Indeed. The best endorsement is done explicitly by obnoxious users. I use Linux, btw.

▲

redsocksfan45 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

trwired 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is that a bad thing? I mean from the perspective of Anthropic's marketing department sure, but if agents are just another type of tool in developer's tool belt - as I see people recently like to claim - attribution feels kinda weird. In the end it is the developer who is responsible for their commits.

	▲	eli 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah I think it's a bad thing. It's context about how open source code was written that is lost. And I guess maybe there's no such thing as bad press but at least in this cases it doesn't seem like effective marketing for Anthropic.

▲

mohamedkoubaa 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'd be willing to be that an undisclosed LLM disclosure will follow a developer around for the rest of their career

▲

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

I mean, I don't think commits are the place for tool attributions. I want to know what the change was, I'm not really interested in your tool selection (put that in the PR if it's relevant). It'd be just as irrelevant to see "written on my macbook in neovim"

	▲	hnav an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Depends on what the claude attribution actually means. A lot of people will just get the thing building and then ship. To me that attribution is generally a red flag.

▲

potsandpans 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think it will be funny to watch people lose their collective minds when open source maintainers start requiring llm use.

This idea that the community can try to pressure an open source maintainers about the tools they use based off of kneejerk political reactions is so offensive.

Let's go the opposite way: "sorry I'm closing this pr because it didn't use an llm."

▲

automatic6131 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"let's go the opposite way"

Do you have any popular open source projects? Or are you just an Internet gremlin?

▲

potsandpans 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm a successful distinguished engineer within mag 7, what are your qualifications? Please send me your resume and social security number to verify that you're qualified to speak on the matter.

	▲	an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

matheusmoreira 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It makes no sense at all to do that. The only thing that matters is whether the code is good.

	▲	potsandpans an hour ago \| parent [-]
		This is my whole point. The whole thing is ludicrous. And lo and behold, people are losing their collective minds, bridgading my posts, flagging me and demanding credentials.