[beshrkayali]

In the case of Claude or others, it is not just an advertisement, it's the weird shape the industry is spinning LLM-assisted-coding as a "co-author" relationship where it should be thought of more like a user-using-a-tool relationship. When you make a design with Photoshop or InDesign, it's not "co-designed by Photoshop", it's just a tool and you used the filters it provides.

It is slightly weird that people accepted this new trend just like that, probably because they think this is being transparent and wanting to give attribution, but it'd be more useful like what the Linux kernel "AI Coding Assistants" page describes, something like `AGENT_NAME:MODEL_VERSION [TOOL1] [TOOL2]`, at least we get to know which model was used and/if any additional tooling on top. And `Assisted-by:` is more appropriate for that purpose than `Co-authored-by`.

[Aperocky]

I'd be much more happy to use "Assisted-by: vim & in memory of Bram Moolenaar" to every commit then attaching Claude anywhere.

[julenx]

Additional context on the kernel guidelines:

- https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/...

- https://lwn.net/Articles/1049830/

[sheept]

The Photoshop comparison doesn't make sense. Co-Authored-By doesn't show up in the final product, just as we don't say an image was exported from Photoshop.

Would you consider the .psd and .indd file extensions to be advertising? It's important to know what program the file came from so you can open it again, because MS Paint and Photoshop produce different files. Similarly, it's important to know whether and which LLM was used, because while all IDEs find and replace the same, each LLM generates code differently from each other and from humans.

[3form]

This is probably because the quality of a Photoshop or InDesign project is rather apparent. Not so with code, and hence a need to assign blame exists.

[NewJazz]

Authorship also has significance for copyright law.