I'm not sure i see it as an ad. "Sent from my iPhone" is an ad because the iPhone is not a meaningful part of sending the email. Claude is a meaningful part of the commit though if you're using it, so to me it's more like clarity or transparency than an advertisement.

▲

Someone1234 a day ago | parent | next [-]

You don't see how a link to "https://claude.ai/.." in the Git log is an ad for Cluade/Anthropic? It feels exactly like "Sent from an iPhone" to me, and has exactly the same value to people reviewing the Git log later (i.e. none).

Keep in mind that if you run across someone else's spam in the Git logs:

- You need a Claude account.

- You need permission to view the session.

The only people who can just follow that link and look at how Claude was used, is Anthropic themselves. Therefore, they can also use it as an additional mechanism to tie sessions back to other IDs/identities. For everyone else this is "Sent from an iPhone" but longer.

▲

hungryhobbit a day ago | parent | next [-]

If I put a link to the Jira ticket the commit fixes, is that an ad for Atlassian?

▲

RussianCow a day ago | parent | next [-]

But presumably everyone in your company/team is using Jira, so it's not an "ad" because it's a product already used internally. Claude is appending these links to all commits by default, whether or not others on the team use Claude. Those are very different things.

▲

rpdillon a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Good counterpoint. We link to GitHub from JIRA, and the reverse. Linking to the Claude session that generated the code seems reasonable...it's a related artifact.

One thing I'm not sure about: what is the utility of linking to the session? What are folks expected to do with that data?

	▲	l1n a day ago \| parent [-]
		for one thing, understanding how the final code ended up that way. it's hard to tell with code alone wherever something is designed or cargo culted.

▲

AlexErrant a day ago | parent | prev [-]

If _you_ choose to do it, no.

If the tool auto-does it, yes.

	▲	1718627440 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You still choose to configure the tool. "It's the default" is only an excuse for the very first time you notice it.

▲

TeMPOraL 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The part after "https://claude.ai/" is a UID, that's useful to have to tie together multiple possibly unrelated commits and changes authored in a given session.

▲

SkyPuncher a day ago | parent | prev [-]

For me, no. I’ve started tracking session ID on every ticket I work on in order to be able to find them again.

Having it in the commit message is handy (not to mentioned I already have it I. The commit message).

▲

Jcampuzano2 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The way I see it, the conversation transcript is the important part. The specific link to claude.ai nor the model itself is important to me. Otherwise we'll all just be linking out to 10 different AI model providers websites to see history. I'd rather it be some open solution.

Models change so much that I don't really see why anybody cares what model was used to generate the code after the fact. It changes every few months and they're non-deterministic so its not like you'll ever "recreate" the same conversation yourself anyways.

	▲	TeMPOraL 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		UID itself is what is useful, regardless of whether or not you have access to the actual session transcript. One could argue that "https://claude.ai/<uid>" is slightly more verbose over "CLAUDE_UID=<uid>", but the former is also slightly more convenient for those with access to the transcript, and both have word "claude" in them, because you need to be able to tell which UID in the commit message is for what.

▲

oniony a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My spade is a meaningful part of digging a hole when I plant a tree, but I still don't want a "Spear and Jackson" sign on my tree when I'm done.

▲

jpc0 a day ago | parent [-]

There has been more than I project where I literally didn’t even look at the code.

I prompted what amounts to verbose “I want X” and then did QA. I’m perfectly happy with an LLM being credited with that code and there being no copyright existing for that code.

For some people that is their life’s work and they want to clutch pearls. Their sole contribution was a half baked idea and they shipped QA out to their “users” but they want to be credited with any rights.

There is definitely a continuum in LLM usage for code, do I agree with an AI blindly stamping every commit, not really.

Do I see LLM generated code as equivalent to me digging a hole with a shovel, it depends. Sometimes there was very little shovelling, other times there was no me involved and you may as well credit the entire hole to the shovel.

Where this will come in is when it comes to copyright and licensing.

If your entire product is LLM generated you sure as hell have no right to place any license on there other than potentially a MIT equivalent license, even that is dubious though but from an organisational standpoint MIT probably will be more widely accepted than saying it is uncopyrightable.

My argument being I would rather know that you didn’t even look at the code, which is what this will achieve, whether I agree with it or not at the very least it will make it easier to sift through the garbage.

▲

ndriscoll 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is a problem with copyright in general. There's no longer any requirement to provide information about copyright status, so there's no way for the public to know whether something is copyrighted (no doubt the uncertainty is intentional as an additional way to undermine the public domain). This is just as true for expired copyrights, or material placed in the public domain intentionally.

The solution isn't to add notices to non-copyrighted things; it's to require notice for copyrighted things, including date.

Individually, of course, one should simply assume things are not copyrighted if you have no way to know, and do whatever you want. If the author can't be bothered to tell you, you have no moral responsibility to care.

▲

calmworm 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> If your entire product is LLM generated you sure as hell have no right to place any license on there

Something you’ve created from nothing because of the tool you’ve used to create it should not be allowed to be licensed?

▲

jpc0 8 hours ago | parent [-]

By that very definition you did not create it.

Yes it’s the same as using a stock drum pattern in a drum machine, it is not copyrightable because no human was involved in any part of it.

If you have an idea and want rights to it then do it the old fashion way and pay a developer to do a commissioned work and you can have your copyright, heres the catch, that will cost a hell of a lot more than 100usd a month

	▲	calmworm 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And when that developer copies and pastes useful code snippets from the internet into this product you’ve commissioned them to create? Also not copyrightable?

▲

theplumber a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree. But I think I would also like the OS to put a fingerprint (I.e committed on macOSX in /usr/marc/… while he was watching porn on xxx). This way we can get the full context by default and better understand the PRs.

	▲	leoqa a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I’ll start working on the impl, you get the VC funding. I’m sure there is a Balmer peak joke in here.
	▲	touwer a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I want that under every message I send from my phone!!

▲

internet2000 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> "Sent from my iPhone" is an ad because the iPhone is not a meaningful part of sending the email.

It explains the brevity and any typos. That's how I see it used.