Josh Ellithorpe

@snowalgo @GrunerMonzon @svpino At no time did I said they have their own intention. I said they produce code the human didn't anticipate. This means it is very difficult to say the human wrote the code... how do they write something they didn't even expect to exist?

@zquestz @GrunerMonzon @svpino and your egotistical btw is just silly, I don't care what your background is if you make false claims. an unintentional consequence of a series of prompts is not intention from the model.

No, I don't think AI should be thanked, credited for its work, celebrated, chastised, or treated as anything other than a tool. Should we start crediting Visual Studio Code on every commit? Should we also credit Python? How about crediting Apple for their computers, which made that particular commit possible?

Zero false claims were made. All I said was that agents can produce code the human has no context on. This is true. Agents can also work with people to produce code that the human has full context on and is the legitimate author of. Your comment shows how uninformed you are. The LLM actually does produce code. This can't be denied. IDE's don't produce code, they let you edit and create it. Computers don't produce code, and aren't even required to write it. I can write code in a notebook. Your comparisons just show how ill informed you are.

@zquestz @GrunerMonzon @svpino I don't care how to credit llm use. Full transparency of a commit would include all the things listed above (llm use, ide, computer, etc). What I strongly disagree w/ is your claim that models write code without human involvement. they cannot act on their own nor have intentions.

@snowalgo @GrunerMonzon @svpino LOL, so commits the user never intended should still be in their name, and not credited to the bot... BTW, you really should research people before insulting them.

@zquestz @GrunerMonzon @svpino just because the bot output something unexpected to the prompter doesn't mean it has intention. it is acting based on the user prompt, bootstrap files, and the hard system prompts. please understand how it works before making these asinine claims.

@snowalgo @GrunerMonzon @svpino See the 1000+ posts about claws creating apps that surprised their owners... because, wait for it, the owner didn't ask the bot to do it.

@zquestz @GrunerMonzon @svpino there is no bot that operates with zero human involvement, they all start with programmed instructions and with prompts telling them what to do

There are lots of bots that write apps they need, with ZERO human involvement other than setting up the bot... Some people tell the agents to create a business, and figure out how to make money, and don't provide any app criteria or direction. The agent that originally wrote the code, was obviously trained on what it eventually wrote, so would have more context than anyone else, even if it was limited and not very bright.

@zquestz @GrunerMonzon @svpino the automated agent just started itself up and applied for the job and took initiative on what to do? or a human prompted it on what to do? can the agent even recognize its own code when given back to it for inspection or does it have no recollection?

That is in cases where the agent worked with the person through the whole process. This is how AI should be used, and I completely agree that is when it is a tool. I use AI often, but work with it every step of the way, reviewing code, providing feedback, and improving the project the whole time. Some people literally write a prompt, and nothing else. Some don't even write a prompt, and just send a voice recording of what they want.

@zquestz @svpino Yes they do. I've seen horrible vibe coded apps, and I've seen nice, clean apps where the user carefully guided the agent.

@GrunerMonzon @svpino Tools are things that humans use. Automated agents, writing the code and then committing it, don't have human involvement...

@zquestz @svpino i agree with @svpino in this one. You are still the author, not the LLM. The LLM is just another tool, at a higher level of abstraction, but still a tool.

From your comments it is very clear you think your "prompts" mean you wrote the code. You didn't. And if the agent also committed, then the likelihood that you even reviewed it is slim to none. So why would your name be on the commit? Here's the real life example. Hey junior engineer, I need this feature done. Engineer does all the work, sends you a diff. You then commit it in your name, as if you did the work. Now, when someone asks you about it, you literally have no context, as you didn't write it, and didn't review it. In fact, all you know is the commit exists, and have almost zero context on what actually was committed into the repo. Your team, and other contributors don't know which engineer actually wrote it, because the commit is in your name. That makes no sense... If the agent is actually on the commit message, then at least there is a fallback plan, and the team knows where the original code came from.

@zquestz I don't want to hide anything. I simply want full control of my commit messages. I'm replying to your suggestion that Claude attribution should be mandatory for code written by Claude. I disagree with that.

@svpino Obviously. At no point did I say you weren't responsible. However, commits are attributing who wrote and committed the code, not who will be maintaining it. Having the maintainer, and the author credited makes sense to me. Unless you want to hide the fact that AI assisted you.

@zquestz You are missing the point: you are still responsible for that code.

@svpino So then you would take credit for a junior engineers commit if you were responsible for maintaining it?

@zquestz Makes no difference to me. You are still responsible for it.

I didn't know you could disable Claude Code attribution when committing code. To fix it, I asked Claude Code to disable attribution, and it updated the global settings. json file. No more "Co-Authored-By: AI <ai@example.com>" comments.

@svpino Also please re-read my reply. It said if the AI *wrote* and committed the code.

@zquestz I don't. The person writing the code is responsible for that code. I don't care whether a model was involved or not.

@svpino So you don't believe an AI should be credited for their work? What about in an age when AGI exists?

@session_app If you get funding, at what point does lokinet get love?

@zquestz There won't be any further development without additional funding, unfortunately. Of course it's entirely open source, the network itself is decentralized (and theoretically be redeployed by others), so it can live on in that sense.

Without additional funding, Session's doors will close next month. Please read this appeal from Session co-founder Chris McCabe. getsession.org/donation

@vinibarbosabr Yeah, the field is mandatory for new users. What does it do for service users where it's merely for service isolation? Or existing users that were already created?

systemd has merged a commit by dylanmtaylor to collect and store users's birth dates in compliance with Brazil and California age verification laws -- which has been a controversial topic in Linux communities the same dev (dylanmtaylor) tried to push a similar change to archinstall (Arch Linux), which has, so far, been denied -- but the discussion was reopened after being closed for a while there are also reports of commentators having their posts removed or even being banned from the r/linux subreddit for posting opposing views to age verification laws and compliance how can the subreddit of the leading OPEN-source project be so CLOSED for different perspectives? makes you wonder... reddit is a terrible place for open debates, i'm more than convinced at this point

@justrikkotbh @AdamRackis Absolutely false. Pretty much *every* developer I know uses AI in their workflow now. It is not just used by students. That is a terrible take. The experienced devs know the importance of review, and don't just merge generated code without thorough review and refactoring.

@zquestz @AdamRackis You know well that AI is mostly used by devs enrolled/graduating university and they dont have the ability to write, let alone review code.Using the narrative that "you should use AI if you review the code" is an ignorant argument and harmful to the majority of people, stop it.

There's so many small details AI gets horribly wrong Median software quality is gonna drop so hard next few years

@MetamateDaz Need to find something you are actually passionate about doing. The rest is noise and will no longer excite or motivate you.

how do you get your work ethic back? I burned myself out from 2018-2025 and now I’m tired and just don’t want to anymore.

@steveruizok No one is forcing you to use agents. Feel free to open up a standard IDE.

It does bother me that it costs money to code now

@VHSDVDBLURAY4K So when Netflix comes out, you automatically lose?

This is the best game you will ever play 90’s Retro Rewind Video Store Simulator -Manage a Rental Store -Rent out physical media -Charge late fees -Upgrade and customize your store