| HN Mirror

The value of the Claude attribution is that you can tell at a glance who used AI.

I don't care about the advertising angle. We all know Claude by now. I want some indicator that AI was used.

block_dagger 6 days ago

At my employer, if AI is not used, it shows up on your performance report and you’ll be told if you don’t start using it, you will be dismissed. I work at a medium sized successful YC-backed SaaS. So here, the attribution is meaningless - they look at your Bedrock and LLM API calls as well as Claude Code history.

If the company policy is to have everyone using it then everyone is going to assume you're using it.

I don't see a need for an attribution line in this case.

fragmede 6 days ago

Do you fellow ICs have access to those reports and can correlate commits from you to the prompts used to create them easily?

block_dagger 6 days ago

Not currently. Each IC's report is kept private unless they voluntarily share it, and IC's don't have visibility into other IC's Claude Code or Cursor logs. I think we're moving toward a model where it will be easier to correlate commits with chats, but timeline is not clear.

fragmede 6 days ago

Seems far more efficient to just have a line the commit message then.

https://github.com/dtnewman/burn-baby-burn

vips7L 6 days ago

ethagnawl 6 days ago

> they look at your Bedrock and LLM API calls as well as Claude Code history.

This is fucking insane. How does this correlate with productivity in any way? The results are all that matters, who cares how you got there?

andrekandre 6 days ago

  > The results are all that matters, who cares how you got there?

i actually said this at $JOB to a manager, to which they replied "yes, but in the future all code will be ai generated, so thats the 'results' we are looking for"....

mexicocitinluez 6 days ago

If it's decent code, but attributed to AI, how does that change things? What real-world impacts does that have?

That's what I can't for the life of me figure out. Bad code is bad code regardless of who is writing it. Adding a disclaimer about how it was written is meaningless. Hell, it could say "Written by the Easter bunny" and that would have 0 impact on it's utility.

agentultra 6 days ago

Not the commenter you replied to:

I think many people in this camp have political or ethical concerns and want to avoid contributing to or supporting the companies behind frontier-AI tools. Or they have moral or technical concerns and want to boycott usage to maintain their principles.

It should be fairly widely known at this point.

mexicocitinluez 6 days ago

Obviously people have those concerns. The comment above specifically said:

> The value of the Claude attribution is that you can tell at a glance who used AI.

Specifies none of that, which is why I was asking the question.

> technical concerns

Which is exactly why I asked what I did. What technical concerns could possibly exist if the code is good? What does adding that attribution remove or add to technical concerns that you can't already see from the code itself?

agentultra 6 days ago

Maybe you want to resist normalizing the use of GenAI for programming?

I know my personal choice doesn’t make much of a difference but I refuse to own a car. I advocate at my local city council to remove car storage from streets, remove parking minimums, add better transit, make the core of our city car-free. It sometimes feels easier to join in and just accept that this is the way of the world but I refuse to believe in inevitability: building cities for the benefit of cars is a choice.

Maybe some folks want to avoid AI code because they don’t want to make that choice?

I can’t say for them. But I do know there’s no sense pretending like they don’t have a point or feigning shock that someone might not have the same view as you do.

mexicocitinluez 5 days ago

Are you intentionally misreading my comments?

I asked a simple question: What technical concerns could possibly exist if the code is good?

I made it very clear I wasn't talking about personal, political, or ethical arguments.

> But I do know there’s no sense pretending like they don’t have a point or feigning shock that someone might not have the same view as you do.

Where am I feigning shock? Are you reading the right comment thread before you're replying?

And why do you want to know that? So you can call our projects slop? Ostracize us?

Hammershaft 6 days ago

Because LLMs are not humans, and the code they produce will have a different distribution of failure modes than human written code, so attribution is useful info while reviewing?

> while reviewing

As I said, disclosure is polite when contributing code to third party projects which will undergo human review.

No need for such things in one's own projects.

Groxx 6 days ago

>which will undergo human review

This can be largely assumed to be true for any open source code. It's kinda the point of open source.

Nope. It cannot be assumed at all. Maintainer could just as easily tell Claude to review the hand written code you sent instead of spending any effort on it. Maintainer could sit on the patch for months on end only to swoop in later and rewrite it instead of engaging with you, thereby erasing your contribution and attribution. Maintainer could just ignore you entirely despite the pervasive "patches welcome" attitude.

If there's one thing I learned not to do in open source, it's to assume nonsense like that.

toofy 6 days ago

for the same reason we want to know who wrote an article, a book, a movie, a song, a play, a journal paper, a painting, and on and on.

why do you so many people want to hide who the real author is?

we should be very weary of anyone claiming they’re the author of something when they’re absolutely not. if jon wrote a book and i take credit, that’s shady as hell.

Ghostwriting is a thing.

kelnos 6 days ago

Yes, and I respect ghostwritten work less than I do a work with a disclosed true author. Same would be true of unattributed AI-generated code.

Barrin92 6 days ago

yes because there's people who can't write but want to pretend that they can, just like the people who don't disclose they're using these tools. If you're the Gwyneth Paltrow of programming you're not making a great case for yourself, and I'd like to know before touching any of the software.

I don't know, am I? Why don't you check out my work and decide for yourself? Better than forming prejudiced opinions about others.

codygman 6 days ago

So that the AI model that generated code can get proper credit and we'll know to use (or not use it) next time.

That's not at all what someone who wants to "tell at a glance who used AI" actually wants to know.

You don't need an AI attribution tag to recognize slop. In my experience reviewing PRs, the slop-pushers are most aggressive about stripping the AI attribution anyway. It's the normal devs who use a little bit of AI who leave it in.

The tag is helpful because AI authorship is different than the human authorship. When you work with a project or team for long enough you start to trust certain people and their intuition, but when they start submitting AI-produced code you have to reset and review it like AI code.

I use these tools a lot, too. But I want to know where the code came from so I can review it accordingly. The source matters.

> Ostracize us?

I don't know why you're so defensive. If AI wrote the code just be honest about it.

If you outsourced the code writing to some guy named Bob on Fiverr, I'd want to know that too.

https://lobste.rs/s/29pm2f/llm_generated_submissions_should_...

> I don't know why you're so defensive.

Check it out:

https://lobste.rs/s/ytim7h/collection_small_low_stakes_low_e...

I'm not interesting in joining into some argument you're having with someone on lobste.rs

You're not supposed to join. You said you didn't know why I was defensive. I showed you those posts as evidence of the stigma attached to LLMs and their usage. Now you know why.

ezst 6 days ago

Some people prefer organic grown food for all kinds of reasons, does it matter to you they would want the same for code? (Also, I'm not picking a side here)

It matters when I'm contributing to their projects. In that case I'll go out of my way to be polite and learn their rules.

kelnos 6 days ago

That's really all anyone is asking of you. It's odd that this is your position, and yet you seem to be arguing (in your other comments) in a way that seems like you think that you should be able to do whatever you want, with any project, their requirements be damned.

Because the reasons for doing it matter. The "different failure modes" argument is a fair point. Since it changes the way code is reviewed, it is polite to disclose use of LLMs.

But you and others in this thread seem hellbent on stigmatizing it to the point you take it as evidence of someone's incompetence. So I'm not at all sympathetic to your "requirements".

That's really all anyone's asking of you: enough respect for your fellow programmers that you avoid pre-judging them. If you can't do that, then what do we care about your "requirements"?

eschaton 6 days ago

So we can know which commits will be infringing others’ copyright.

julianeon 6 days ago

If Claude is actually good enough to commit to rsync, of course I'm going to look at that and think "it's good enough for my side project too." And (benefit to companies aside) that is info it is useful to know, if it's true.

amiga386 6 days ago

Yeah, this is why it's obnoxious and this is why scummy marketers do it. If you don't aggressively turn it off, they leech an implicit endorsement out of you.

- Sent from my iPhone

AnotherGoodName 6 days ago

Alto hug the iphone sigoff is hilaripus sonce fhe meyboard is so bad it always comes across asa an ask doe forgivebeds

— Sent from my iPhone

AlienRobot 6 days ago

Indeed. The best endorsement is done explicitly by obnoxious users.

I use Linux, btw.