It's not a self-own, it's honest disclosure. It's unethical (if not outright fraudulent) to publish LLM work as if it were your own. Claude setting itself as coauthor is a good way to address this problem, and it doing so by default is a very good thing.

> […] and also the way Claude injects itself as a co-author.

> Seeing them is an easy signal to recognize work that was submitted by someone so lazy they couldn’t even edit the commit message. You can see the vibe coded PRs right away.

I was doing the opposite when using ChatGPT. Specifically manually setting the git commit author as ChatGPT complete with model used, and setting myself as committer. That way I (and everyone else) can see what parts of the code were completely written by ChatGPT.

For changes that I made myself, I commit with myself as author.

Why would I commit something written by AI with myself as author?

> I think we should continue encouraging AI-generated PRs to label themselves, honestly.

Exactly.

You're conflating two different things. When an LLM writes a commit, it should take credit. I see nothing wrong with it adding:

> Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 [email protected]

Compare that to the message the article is talking about:

> Quickly spin up Copilot coding agent tasks from anywhere on your macOS or Windows machine with Raycast (https://gh.io/cca-raycast-docs).

It's not just mentioning it was written via Copilot, it's explicitly advertising for another product.

I just submitted my first Claude authored application to Github and noticed this. I actually like it, although anthropomorphizing my coding tools seems a bit weird, it also provides a transparent way for others to weigh the quality of the code. It didn’t even strike me as relevant to hide it, so I’d not exactly call it lazy, rather ask why bother pretending in first place?

It's part of the attribution settings from `.claude/settings.json` if you're referring to Claude Code.

Personally, I adjusted the defaults since I don't like emojis in my PR.

[1]: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/settings#attribution-setting...

These are odd takes to me.

> was submitted by someone so lazy they couldn’t even edit the commit message. You can see the vibe coded PRs right away.

As others mentioned, this is very intentional for me now as I use agents. It has nothing to do with laziness, I'm not sure why you would think that? I assume vibe coded PRs are easy enough to spot by the contents alone.

> I would like to know when someone is trying to have the tool do all of their work for them.

What makes you think the LLM is doing _all_ of the work? Is it really an impossibility that an agent does 75% of the work and then a responsible human reviews the code and makes tweaks before opening a PR?

Agreed! Easy close/ban for me.

> I would like to know when someone is trying to have the tool do all of their work for them.

Absolutely spot on. Maybe I'm old school, but I never let AI touch my commit message history. That is for me - when 6 months down the line I am looking at it, retracing my steps - affirming my thought process and direction of development, I need absolute clarity. That is also because I take pride in my work.

If you let an AI commit gibberish into the history, that pollution is definitely going to cost you down the line, I will definitely be going "WTF was it doing here? Why was this even approved?" and that's a situation I never want to find myself in.

Again, old man yells at cloud and all, but hey, if you don't own the code you write, who else will?

Get a grip with reality man, if you don’t leverage LLMs in your workflow, you are at an disadvantage

[dead]