[0123456789ABCDE]

it absolutely is advertising, you can even call it a growth hack if you want to feel good about it

co-authorship implies ability to hold author rights, which afaik an algorithm can't do.

are folks adding speakeasy/stainless co-authorship lines to their commits? should i add alembic as a co-author after making some changes to the database schema?

  Co-authored-by: buf generate <[e-mail]>

[kuschku]

That's exactly what you're supposed to do - if a tool generated the code in a commit, you should be using a commit trailer for that. Whether that's uniffi, an rpc preprocessor, dependabot or renovate, or some AI tool.

[0123456789ABCDE]

> That's exactly what you're supposed to do

this does not seem to match reality, see:

  1. count for claude as co-author: 25M
  2. count for speakeasy as co-author: 917
  3. count for stainless as co-author: 6.2k
  4. count for alembic as co-author: *Your search did not match any commits*

ex. search: https://github.com/search?q=%22Co-Authored-By%3A+Claude%22+%...

[kuschku]

As the sibling notes, that would usually be marked as Generated-By or Generator or similar tags. Claude is only using "Co-Authored-By" for the same reason that Anthropic is calling claude "he", not "it": to anthropomorphize the machine in the public's perception.

[Conan_Kudo]

There's a Generated-by trailer for that sort of thing.

[cobbal]

If co-authorship implies holding rights, then what gives the "primary author" who just prompted for the code the right to add their own name?

[0123456789ABCDE]

the fact they authored the code?

assume no deep learning, of any kind is involved: you write a program, you are the author, right? you compile the code, are you still the author? do you have to attribute co-authorship to gcc/llvm/oracle?

i think not, you are still the author, same as when anyone else uses an llm to write code.

ianal