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 2 hours 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 2 hours 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 an hour 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 an hour 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 an hour 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.