|
| ▲ | 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 44 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 34 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 24 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 15 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. | | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I see. That depends on how much I care about the project. My favorite ones get weeks of review and refinement, to the point I still consider them to be more or less hand written. Not all projects get to be that important. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ezst 20 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 17 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. |
| |
