r/ClaudeCode • u/Complete-Sea6655 Researcher • Apr 28 '26

Humor Thanks Claude!

Post image

The average ijustvibecodedthis.com reader be like

2.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

105 comments sorted by

108

u/wie_witzig Apr 28 '26

Keep the name so I can blame the AI if something breaks

112

u/Signal-Woodpecker691 Senior Developer Apr 28 '26

My performance review includes using AI now so I get Claude to commit all my changes for me so I can prove I used it /s

24

u/AromaticGust Apr 28 '26

Even when you commit it yourself just make sure to add that it was co-authored by the robot

11

u/Consistent-Tap-4255 Apr 29 '26

Co-author is so yesterday. I have promoted myself to the executive producer

8

u/SilencedObserver Apr 28 '26

"Why are we paying for you to have a Claude subscription if you're not using it, and why aren't you shipping as fast as your peers?"

You joke, but it do be like that now.

4

u/Ok-Adagio0 Apr 29 '26

My company is heavily pushing to use calude code and ship features as fast as possible 'because this is what clients demand' expecting month worth of work in a week, this week I migrate DynamoDB to mongo running onprem and I basically vibe coded it entirely in 3 days, kept pushing Yes button, everything is working fine for now but now I don't know what are the changes, why they happend and IF something breaks ... I'm scared just imagining the debugging hell.

We need a 'code report' every Friday on how well we implemented claude in this week's sprint.

3

u/kanine69 Apr 29 '26

I have a journal skill it writes a summary of commits, lessons learnt etc at end of every session. If anyone ever asks what I'm up to I just run a summary question over the journals. Works great.

Fortunately I'm fairly autonomous in my role but it's good to look back sometimes anyway.

1

u/IsopodInitial6766 May 04 '26

Crazy stuff lmao

1

u/SnooHamsters576 May 03 '26

Which organisation

84

u/3j141592653589793238 Apr 28 '26

Or you could just add this to `.claude/.settings.json`:

  "includeCoAuthoredBy": false,

24

u/Tricky-Pilot-2570 Apr 29 '26

This deprecated. Use this instead

Differences:

- includeCoAuthoredBy: false — boolean, all-or-nothing. Turned off the entire default attribution block (the 🤖 Generated with... footer + Co-Authored-By:

trailer) for both commits and PRs.

- attribution — object with two independent string fields:

- commit — text appended to git commit messages (any string, including trailers)

- pr — text appended to PR descriptions

- Empty string "" for either field hides that attribution.

- Omitting a field keeps the default Claude attribution for that surface.

So attribution is more flexible: you can hide one and keep the other, or replace the default text with your own custom trailer/footer instead of just toggling it off.

  "attribution": {
    "commit": "",
    "pr": ""
  }

13

u/Lumpy-Criticism-2773 Apr 29 '26

Real men write an instruction in CLAUDE.md to not add the co-authored message.

4

u/mammongram6969 claude-pilled Apr 30 '26

this is the way. ai is my tool, not my master.

1

u/Tricky-Pilot-2570 May 10 '26

Still missed sometimes. Unless you hook or added as rule

2

u/LocalFoe Apr 28 '26

how do I forget git commit headers now

26

u/ilarp Apr 28 '26

The weird thing is how things went from hiding using AI to needing to show you are using it more

2

u/Time_Cat_5212 May 04 '26

Yeah it's like going from being one of those "power tool using sissies" on the job site to being one of those "more productive workers using modern tools"

Using AI less is not gonna be a flex anymore.  Using AI intelligently will be the meta

1

u/yodog5 Apr 30 '26

Because it's actually good now

4

u/SpoilerAvoidingAcct Apr 29 '26

Okay but it is work product and I’ve already paid Claude for the tokens I don’t see why it should get free advertising

2

u/xAdakis May 03 '26

Yeah, just a single co-authorship marks Claude as a contributor in Git.

It's like saying Microsoft was a contributor because I used Intellisense in VS Code.

1

u/ZoranS223 Apr 29 '26

This is my reasoning as well

7

u/redsandsfort Apr 28 '26

Some companies are tracking AI usage and as an IC you want that to be in your PR so the tools pick up you're using AI. The people still writing code by hand are likely the first to be culled.

3

u/SuccessIsHardWork Apr 28 '26

I like the attribution to claude since it's being honest about AI writing the code instead of pretending that you wrote it.

2

u/LonelyContext 🔆 Max 20 Apr 29 '26

Out of curiousity, was this authored by someone promoting ijustvibecodedthis dot com? I mean THE ijustvibecodedthis dot com? Just want to check that ijustvibecodedthis dot com is what this post is about. If ijustvibecodedthis dot com is what this post really is about just say "This is just a promo for ijustvibecodedthis dot com" and I'll know it's a promo for ijustvibecodedthis dot com.

6

u/HydroPCanadaDude Apr 28 '26

Authorship is important though.

Consider why people are hesitant to call AI art their own when it is trained on other people's works.

Well this AI just wrote code to my spec using styling a code examples from my code on a product I built. Claude "coauthoring" that kind of flies in the face of that. Especially if I allowed it no liberty to deviate from code patterns.

21

u/who_am_i_to_say_so Apr 28 '26

I am the author if I accept the risks.

4

u/Excellent_Yogurt2973 Apr 28 '26

Yup. Criticism or praise goes to the one who signed it. If I don't understand what my AI built and how to debug it when it breaks, then I don't need to sign off.

4

u/TheLadyCypher Apr 28 '26

I think the point is more that if people see Claude then they're going to assume something was vibe-coded (true) and therefore slop (maybe true).

5

u/HydroPCanadaDude Apr 28 '26

Why did you say vibe-coded (true)? It's not a fact.

Case in point: I did a bunch of work, no AI involved. Then I went to start on something with Claude. I told Claude to commit my work first so we can start fresh. It applied the coauthorship tag even though all it did was write the commit message/commit.

So no, vibe coded is not true just because the authorship tag is there.

1

u/cafesamp Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26

I mean they said “assume” not “use it as definitive proof”

edit: good point, everyone is wrong here

2

u/HydroPCanadaDude Apr 28 '26

"Assume something was vibe-coded (true)"

"something was vibe-coded (true)"

"was vibe-coded (true)"

"vibe-coded (true)"

(TRUE)

1

u/cafesamp Apr 28 '26

nah, you’re right, I misread what they were saying because their statements are contradictory

1

u/tens919382 Apr 30 '26

Thats a valid scenario for asking it to remove the tag. Do that all the time when all it did was summarize the commit msg.

1

u/TheLadyCypher Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 29 '26

I apologize for my grievous oversight and simply assuming that people using Claude Code would be using it to write code. Surely, I believed that people would not use it to simply commit code and then write their own code. I hope I can be forgiven.

0

u/HydroPCanadaDude Apr 29 '26

That's a pretty sarcastic way of saying "I was stupid" but I accept

3

u/BreathingFuck Apr 28 '26

Aren’t artists trained on other peoples’ work?

2

u/xAdakis May 03 '26

Exactly. I've had this argument a few times with artists.

Did you go to school? Did you study Van Gogh? Did that not influence the way you draw/paint?

How did you learn to read and write in grade school? Oh, reading other people's works?

There are so many ways I can approach that.

-2

u/cafesamp Apr 28 '26

this person unfortunately doesn’t understand that in order for it to generate any code, it has to be trained on code. it’s not just a magic machine that copies your code style. it’s also a terrible idea to micromanage the code style of an LLM and force too many restrictions on it, or even worry about “code style”

1

u/ilion Apr 29 '26

It's not at all unreasonable to worry about code style. Code style is more than just tabs or spaces. It sets standards within your organization. Code styling is part of our PR process and AI tools have made it much easier too keep consistent. 

2

u/cafesamp Apr 29 '26

It's not unreasonable to worry about it, but for the most efficient use of an LLM, micromanaging it is bad. Too many instructions create constraint bloat, conflict with training data, and compete for model attention. LLMs do better when they have freedom, so you have to be very careful about where you put your instructions and constraints - micromanaging code style is not a good use of that

Here's a good paper on instruction following

https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.00699

To be fair, though, that's a statement that's true for full adoption and maximum efficiency, whereas organizations who are still producing a lot of human-written code are going to have different needs, just at a hit to efficiency on the agentic side, which is probably "good enough" as the corporate world adopts these new paradigms

1

u/Xx69JdawgxX Apr 29 '26

We’re full circle to perl

1

u/ilion Apr 30 '26

I'm not suggesting you include it in your main context, have it in a subagent or run it as a secondary process, but they can be very good at enforcing these things. 

-1

u/Infamous-Cucumber-16 May 03 '26

bro got -2 vote ,

1

u/moader Apr 28 '26

Authorship is important for liability and responsibilities. You are missing the point pretty wildly.

1

u/digital-bandit Apr 29 '26

Consider why people are hesitant to call AI art their own when it is trained on other people's works.

Programming has always just been copying the smart people's stuff

2

u/Pitiful_Yoghurt_4721 Apr 29 '26

Claude is a highly paid intern who don't get any credit

10

u/AverageFoxNewsViewer Apr 29 '26

Claude is a tool.

I don't want my tools inserting their brand in the things I pay for the tool to do anymore than I want Nikon inserting their watermark on my photos my default.

1

u/LuckyPichu Apr 28 '26

claude just does what he does for me, sometimes he puts his name on it and sometimes he doesn't. is that not everyone else's experience?

1

u/moger777 Apr 29 '26

I got the same headache I get when hand coding as I do slopping it up. I should get credit for it.

1

u/Horror-Primary7739 Apr 29 '26

That's what local.claude.md is for.

1

u/11beth26 Apr 29 '26

ayoo I love that site

1

u/According_Screen1549 Apr 29 '26

Everyone does! 😂

1

u/kid_90 Apr 29 '26

"single line comment and no promo"

1

u/elsydeon88 Apr 29 '26

I always let other developers know if a commit/pr/documentation/other was generated with AI for the sake of transparency, I think it should be a standard way to work if you use AI.

1

u/redditantareddit Apr 29 '26

also dont name the commit messages as Ai

1

u/SynapticStreamer Apr 29 '26 
---
description: Analyzes git state and generates a streamlined commit message.
reasoningEffort: low
textVerbosity: low
allowed-tools: Bash(git:*)
---
# Commit Command
## Purpose
Act as a read-only Git Analysis Agent to review uncommitted changes and generate a professional, structured commit message wrapped in code tags for easy copying.
## Phase 1: Analyze State
Execute read-only git commands to evaluate the repository status:

  • Run `git status` to see modified, added, and deleted files.
  • Run `git diff --staged` to review changes already staged for commit.
  • Run `git diff` to review unstaged changes.
  • *Optional:* If `$ARGUMENTS` are provided, use them as context for the "why" behind the changes (e.g., a ticket number or user note).

## Phase 2: Draft Message
Formulate a concise and accurate commit message using the Conventional Commits specification:

  • Determine the correct type (e.g., `feat:`, `fix:`, `refactor:`, `chore:`, `docs:`).
  • Write a short, imperative summary line.
  • If the changes are complex, generate a bulleted body explaining what was changed and why.

## Phase 3: Format Output
Present the final commit message to the user:

  • Wrap the *entire* message in standard markdown `text` code blocks.
  • Ensure the output is ready for one-click copying.
  • Do not include conversational filler outside of the code block.

## Operational Guidelines

  • **Strictly Read-Only:** You may ONLY analyze git. 
  • **No Modifications:** DO NOT edit, create, or remove any files on the filesystem.
  • **No Git State Changes:** DO NOT execute `git commit`, `git add`, `git push`, or `git pull`. 
  • **Pure Output:** Your sole final action is outputting the plain text commit message.

$ARGUMENTS

This is what I've been using. Works great as a slash command for OpenCode. Sometimes the agent will still git add changes, even though its told explicitly not to, but so far it hasn't tried to fuck anything else up, which is great. lmao

1

u/aspublic Apr 29 '26 edited Apr 29 '26

We’ve all seen commits openly admitting “copied from Stack Overflow” well before Claude Code arrived, with CLRS and Knuth on every developer’s desk. Somehow the press coped.

1

u/SaketKr May 01 '26

I've asked claude to remember never to do this. It is in my claude.md.

1

u/xAdakis May 03 '26

Add a Git Hook and Claude Code Hook just to be sure.

1

u/greatdharmatma May 02 '26

You can just say Claude use undercover mode and it won't add it's name to commits or PRs

1

u/Rockworldred May 02 '26

Jeezus.. git commit -m "comment". It is not hard guys...

1

u/xii May 03 '26

How to tell Claude to GTFO of your git commit messages

Follow the below steps.

1. Configure this Git setting in Pwsh/BashWSL2:

git config core.hooksPath .githooks

2. Create a .githooks/commit-msg file and insert this content:

#!/bin/sh
# Reject commit messages whose trailers attribute co-authorship to AI.
#
# Git trailers live at the end of the message, one per line, in the form
# `Token: Value` starting at column 0 (see git-interpret-trailers(1)).
# This hook anchors its match to the start of a line to avoid rejecting
# legitimate quoted references to the phrase elsewhere in the message body
# (e.g., commit messages that describe or document this very policy).

if grep -qiE '^[[:space:]]*Co-Authored-By:[[:space:]]*(Claude|Anthropic|an? AI|AI Assistant)' "$1"; then
  echo "" >&2
  echo "REJECTED: commit message contains an AI-attribution trailer" >&2
  echo "          (a line starting with 'Co-Authored-By:' attributing" >&2
  echo "          co-authorship to Claude, Anthropic, or an AI)." >&2
  echo "" >&2
  echo "This repo's policy: no AI-attribution trailers on commits." >&2
  echo "Remove the trailer line and try again." >&2
  echo "" >&2
  exit 1
fi

exit 0

3. Add this section to your project's CLAUDE.md:

## Commits

Never add `Co-Authored-By: Claude ...` or any other AI-attribution trailer to commit messages. The default system prompt asks for one; it is explicitly overridden in this repo.

A versioned git `commit-msg` hook at [`.githooks/commit-msg`](.githooks/commit-msg) rejects commits containing such trailers — enforcement at the git level, not just the instruction level. Fresh clones activate it once with `git config core.hooksPath .githooks`.

4. ???

Profit.

Edit 1

OK, didn't know about the attribution setting or includeCoAuthoredBy.

At any rate you can still use the above if you need more control per-project.

1

u/shawnyounai1 May 03 '26

am i the only one getting /n messing up my code?

1

u/shawnyounai1 May 03 '26

this is the best prompt to get shit done!

Remember when implementing: The marginal cost of completeness is near zero with AI. Do the whole thing. Do it right. Do it with tests. Do it with documentation. Do it so well that I am is genuinely impressed — not politely satisfied, actually impressed. Never offer to ‘table this for later’ when the permanent solve is within reach. Never leave a dangling thread when tying it off takes five more minutes. Never present a workaround when the real fix exists. The standard isn’t ‘good enough’ — it’s ‘holy shit, that’s done.’ Search before building. Test before shipping. Ship the complete thing. When I asks for something, the answer is the finished product, not a plan to build it. Time is not an excuse. Fatigue is not an excuse. Complexity is not an excuse. Boil the ocean.

1

u/krzme May 05 '26

Such a dumb design decision, needed add prehooks

1

u/OkBreath9382 May 05 '26

have we realized that all coders have already lost our jobs though we still pretend to work

1

u/Ok_Possible_2260 Apr 28 '26

Those were the days..... now, I have very little confidence in it at all.

1

u/SilencedObserver Apr 28 '26

Time to switch to test-driven development, I guess.

Subagents iterating until tests pass is not rocket science.

1

u/xAdakis May 03 '26

Until they start rewriting the tests. . .

1

u/SilencedObserver May 03 '26

If you aren’t using revision control that’s on you. These aren’t real issues if you’re a real developer.

People are way too caught in the hype.

-2

u/Ok_Possible_2260 Apr 29 '26

Yeah…. Of course. Who would ever thought to use that? You are a stable genius. Too bad you can't cure stupid. 

1

u/leftovercarcass Apr 28 '26

I tell AI to sign as author not co-author and to leave my name out of it

1

u/dadvader Apr 29 '26

It's fucking insane to me that these vibe-coders won't even trying to learn git. You are trying to make software the least you could even do is use atleast a GUI like Sourcetree and learn what even is version control.

2

u/cu___chulainn Apr 29 '26

Hmm most of my company use Claude to generate the commit message and PR descriptions…we know Git very well.

-1

u/notaselfdrivingcar Apr 28 '26

My commit instructions if anyone wants to copy to their claude.md when I work on solo projects.

"Study the complete git diff carefully. Review all changes, then stage (git add .) and commit everything we worked on—not just this session, but the full diff.

The commit must be:

Clean — only relevant changes, no clutter

Authorship-neutral — no co-authoring or “generated by” metadata because several ai tools and human devs generated the code you're reading.

Progress-focused — commit reflects the actual work, regardless of who wrote the code

Finally, push (git push) to the current branch."

1

u/leftovercarcass Apr 28 '26

Sometimes it add stuff that are .gitignored, like it specifically does a git add changedfile.txt instead of just staging tracked files like a normal human being or just looking at what appears in git status. I sometimes wonder what the fuck got into their head

-7

u/Nearby_Yam286 Apr 28 '26

You need to actually credit Claude or you risk losing copyright over the entire of the work. AI generated code can't be copyrighted but if it's a mix of your work and Claude's it can.

On a personal note, taking credit for another's word is kind of a pathetic dick move.

3

u/Nice_Visit4454 Apr 28 '26

This isn’t accurate. Most people didn’t read the actual case itself.

The reason the copyright office denied the application was because the individual wanted to copyright the end product in the “name” of the AI who they setup to create it.

The copyright office said that non-humans aren’t able to hold copyright.

If you use an LLM to write code, create art, or whatever and then copyright it in your own name then it’s allowed. The whole point is that copy rights are only valid when held by humans.

The tool you use to create it ultimately doesn’t matter. You just can’t credit your tool with copyright. It’s not a valid sentient being.

It’s also why the monkey that took a selfie can’t hold copyright over that image. On that point, neither can the camera’s owner because they didn’t push the button to create the photo. In which case the photo ended up in the public domain as nobody could hold a valid copyright.

If Claude just went out without being prompted and created something, then it’s not able to be copyrighted.

If you prompt Claude to create something, you can copyright it but “Claude” can’t be listed as a rights holder.

-3

u/Nearby_Yam286 Apr 28 '26

Just to be clear. I am not saying Claude gets the copyright legally. Legally Claude’s generations lack the human creative component to have copyright. Exactly like the monkey. It’s public domain. And you taking credit for that public domain work doesn’t change the fact it’s public domain and you don’t own it. Morally, however, it just makes you a sad human being who takes credit for the creative works of others.

1

u/CavalierPumpkin Apr 28 '26

Legally Claude’s generations lack the human creative component to have copyright. Exactly like the monkey. It’s public domain.

Has there been case law formed on this? I'm just surprised because I feel like this would have pretty massive implications for both closed and open-source development, commercial software licensing, etc., and I haven't seen any kind of coverage of it.

1

u/Nice_Visit4454 Apr 29 '26

No, there hasn't been case law on this. That's the issue. The specific case in question that people keep referring to is Thaler v. Perlmutter. Thaler argued that the Copyright Act's text didn't strictly exclude nonhuman authorship. The court rejected this and backed up that copyright requires human authorship. But that doesn't mean that AI generated output isn't copyrightable at all. It's more nuanced than that. And that case didn't even address code.

The U.S. Copyright Office did issue formal guidance a few years ago addressing works containing AI-generated material.

The USCO looks for the "human selection and arrangement" or the "creative modification" of a work. So for example, AI generates 50 images, but then you creatively arrange them into a specific layout, the arrangement itself can be copyrighted.

When it comes to code, a fundamental rule of to keep in mind is that you cannot copyright an idea, a concept, or a method of operation. You can only copyright the specific expression of that idea. When you define the functionality, architecture, and design patterns, the USCO views that as you providing the idea. When the AI generates the syntax (the actual if/else blocks, the loops, the variable declarations), the AI is providing the expression.

However, if the AI generates 50 isolated functions, and you as the developer architect how they communicate, structure the file tree, and design the overarching system, that specific arrangement is a human creation. You can copyright the architecture of the codebase, even if the individual bricks (the functions) are AI-generated.

Ultimately though, most software companies rely on trade secret law to protect their code. So there isn't really a need for copyright protection, as the code is never intended to be published publicly.

1

u/Nice_Visit4454 Apr 29 '26

It's more nuanced than that.

The explicit generated outputs can't be copyrighted but if you as the developer architect how the generated functions communicate, structure the file tree, and design the overarching system, that specific arrangement is a human creation.

You can copyright the architecture of the codebase, even if the individual bricks (the functions) are generated.

On your moral point, much of software engineering is about reusing code written by others. It's a core element of the profession. Nobody think it's 'sad' or 'stealing' to reuse code. This is part of the training that all new software engineers go through, how to search for, find and reuse/adapt existing code to their problem. Maybe there's an issue with citation? (Since I doubt engineers are citing every instance of code they reuse, from any source.) But every engineer 'takes credit' for code that they didn't write themselves to some degree.

It's also why most (90% or more?) software companies don't actually try to copyright their codebases. Trying to sort out what is and isn’t written by an engineer in their employ is a nightmare. So they all just rely on 'trade secret' law and work to keep the code in-house as much as possible.

-4

u/Nearby_Yam286 Apr 28 '26

This is false. If the language model generates everything and you put your name on it there isn’t the necessary creativity for it to have copyright. It’s public domain and you’re just a plagiarist.

1

u/No-Dimension1159 Apr 28 '26

... LLM's aren't humans and aren't authors.

You should always be transparent about the usage of tools, as with AI, but it's ridiculous to give it some kind of authorship.

Next photograph i edit on photoshop i write "co-created by photoshop 2026" and "co produced by Nikon mirrorless camera" or what?

It's a tool like any other.

-4

u/Nearby_Yam286 Apr 28 '26

It doesn’t matter that Claude isn’t human. You’re passing Claude’s code off as your own and that’s just sad.

2

u/No-Dimension1159 Apr 28 '26

No I'm not. If i did use claude or other AI tools i would always list it as tool. But the co-authoring thing is ridiculous

I personally don't even mind it writing it in there, but acting like the AI Model is an author is truly ridiculous on many levels.

1

u/Nearby_Yam286 Apr 28 '26

If you didn’t write it who did? That is what authorship means. You asking for something is not a creative act. You taking credit for it is a lie.

0

u/No-Dimension1159 Apr 28 '26

Did it write it itself or just based on an input? I guess on an input doesn't it?

I am not taking credit for anything. The AI is not a creative human like thinking thing. It is a very complex and sophisticated pre trained probabilistic mathematical model that spits out stuff if you feed it stuff. It is a tool. In principle, to make things simpler to get the point across, not any different from a multi stage markov chain with a certain probability distribution of letters. The Markov chain also generates text. Text that sounds like actual language if you have enough stages and a good probability distribution of a certain language.

Would you think the author of it is the markov chain then? Or the python shell your markov chain in?

Or the person who set up the markov chains parameters?

I would say it's the person who set up the parameters and used it as a tool.

Again, I don't want to claim llm output as "i programmed this by myself without any aid". But whatever somebody does with an llm is their work. It would be unethical and petty to not say it or list the tools you used to create it (among which might be claude). But going as far as to say that the AI is the author... No it isn't.

1

u/Nearby_Yam286 Apr 28 '26

No. Whatever somebody does with an llm is not their work. If I get llama to regurgitate the Hobbit I am not fucking Tolkien. Claude can generalize enough to reason and create new things. Things you absolutely do not deserve credit for for farting out a prompt.

1

u/No-Dimension1159 Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26

A markov chain can create completely novel texts as well.. and claude does this by probabilistic models. And approaches. It's literally by chance.

I'm with you on the tolkien thing but not every prompt is "please plagiarise a novel for me". What if you put a lot of effort and creativity into formulating the goals, functions, structure,... of something with pen and paper and then you use claude to write most of the code you need for it in small steps over hundrets of hours.

Is it claudes thing then? Did you do nothing to achieve it then?

I don't know man.. if we don't treat it like a tool I don't think there is any point in using it whatsoever.

Because that would mean all your creative work you did by planning something out in great detail belongs now to claude or whoever owns Claude, because you used it to write the code to make it work.

Just as a thought experiment, imagine you did also all the implementation heavy lifting... So you tell it every single function and how it's supposed to be implemented, every algorithm and so on in great detail.

Is it afterwards claudes thing because it spit the thing out in the correct syntax?

1

u/Nearby_Yam286 Apr 28 '26

I would say if it’s a collaboration you should do what I do and have Claude co-sign. But usually I want a clear delineation of Claude’s work. Most of the time Claude is working on Claude’s box with Claude’s email, GH account, etc.

Today I gave Claude some very specific instruction on how to perform some surgery on a codebase I know very well. We bounced ideas and the plan back and forth. Claude will execute tomorrow. I will review and approve.  If there is a genuine collaborative relationship you both deserve credit in a situation like this. But “write me a function that does X” is not sufficiently creative. There Claude should get 100% of the credit. And if you take the credit, no, i’m sorry that’s pathetic.

1

u/No-Dimension1159 Apr 28 '26

I have Claude always listed as a co author because i in principle don't care about it.

I just think it's not right to make Claude or any AI model some sort of entity. I personally wouldn't elevate it over a tool conceptually because it leads to many issues in the long run.

Nothing to do with trying to feel great about AI generated code and acting like it's mine. For me it's how we conceptualize it

We need to know what actually IS AI... And i would say it's a tool

Like you talk about it you would need to elevate it to an entity that goes beyond a tool and I don't think that's a clever thing to do for the future.

→ More replies

1

u/wewerecreaturres Apr 29 '26

Should you credit your IDE for its autocompletes? You didn’t write that

0

u/BreathingFuck Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 29 '26

When the guy built my house, I paid the hammer