100% agree with this. Want my browser search history too so you can see my thought process?

This is terrible. I have no desire to read your Claude conversation. I don’t even want to read mine if I do use Claude.

The code is the artifact. There’s no value in trying to make the noisy, verbose conversation one. It’ll likely be dead in future years anyway.

▲

NewJazz 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I disagree with this. The code alone is not the artifact. How you came to the decision to write the code in a certain way is certainly an important artifact of the development process. Otherwise how would your coworkers know whether or not a particular piece of logic is still relevant?

▲

flaburgan 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

By commenting your code?

	▲	NewJazz 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Ok, but folks aren't even writing their own code, you think they'll go back and comment generated code? They often don't even look at the implementation that closely. Also, while commenting is good, commit messages can stick around longer.

▲

skydhash 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> How you came to the decision to write the code in a certain way is certainly an important artifact of the development process. Otherwise how would your coworkers know whether or not a particular piece of logic is still relevant

Not really. Why is always more important than how. Even what is more important. Relevancy of a particular block of code is in the specs and some technical aspecs of computing/library/platform, not in the thought process of the developer.

▲

Robdel12 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

How did you before LLMs 3 years ago?

	▲	NewJazz 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Same way I do now, I write what prompted the change in the commit message. Fwiw i don't like a session link in the commit message, because of link rot reasons.

▲

not_a_bot_4sho 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree and disagree. It all comes down to how much a human was involved with the code.

If the code is artisan to any degree (authored, edited, reviewed, etc.), it's a bit ridiculous.

It does makes sense to me if the human driver was hands-off the code because the conversation becomes the artifact.

I'm older, and have very mixed feelings about the latter case but it seems inevitable that engineers will be working at a higher level where conversational governance becomes important. We'll stop this charade of hiding AI contributions behind human identities. (Note: I don't think conversation IDs are what we need but it's a step down this path.)