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?

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.

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

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)

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.

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