> In a post on his blog, software engineer Indradhanush Gupta writes that he is no lon­ger crediting Anthropic’s Claude on his code changes, because "adding an LLM as co-author gives you a way for you to shirk responsibility for mistakes." Pressed by commenters that this sounds like a pretext for hiding LLM use, Gupta insists that it is not.

I use LLMs every day at work. At the same time, I've never had an LLM appear as a "co-author", not because I'm making any effort to hide my LLM use, but because I've never been comfortable letting an LLM commit code. I use staging changes, hunk by hunk (or sometimes even line-by-line), as my review process. I don't want LLMs performing any git operations that add or push commits. I imagine I'm not the only one.

PS: If you want some bumpers to help avoid having your LLMs commit code, configuring Git for commit signing and blocking access to your signing key, agent socket, write access to your local Git config, etc., is pretty effective in my experience.

> I don't want LLMs performing any git operations that add or push commits.

Why not? It seems rather odd to let it generate code but draw the line at git commands. Maybe a quick reminder that git operations have detailed history and are entirely reversible is in order.

Do you even LLM at that point?