[nothrabannosir]

You can prove the commits were signed by a key you once verified. It is your trust in those people which allows you to extend that to “no LLM” usage, but that’s reframing the conversation as one of trust, not human / machine. Which is (charitably) GPs point: stop framing this as machine vs human — assume (“accept”) that all text can be produced by machines and go from there: what now? That’s where your proposal is one solution: strict web of trust. It has pros and cons (barrier to entry for legitimate first timers), but it’s a valid proposal.

All that to say “you’re not disagreeing with the person you’re replying to” lol xD

[lrvick]

I can prove that code was signed by a key that was verified to belong to a single human body by lots of in-person high reputation humans.

How the code was authored, who cares, but I can prove it had multiple explicit cryptographic human signoffs before merge, and that is what matters in terms of quality control and supply chain attack resistance.

[nothrabannosir]

Exactly. So in the words of the comment you replied to: why are we wasting energy on worrying about Claude code impersonating humans? We have that solution you proposed.

That’s what I mean by “you agree with the person to whom you replied”

[lrvick]

I suppose you are correct. I am agreeing that if one widely deployed the defense tactics projects like stagex use, then asshats using things like undercover will not be trusted.

Unfortunately outside of classic Linux packaging platforms, useful web of trust and signing is very rare, so I expect things like undercover mode being popular are going to make everything a lot worse before it gets better.

[nothrabannosir]

Your last point, I think, is why so many sibling commenters are balking at GP :)