zlacker

>>freeto+(OP)
I’m not a big AI fan but I do see it as just another tool in your toolbox. I wouldn’t really care how someone got to the end result that is a PR.

But I also think that if a maintainer asks you to jump before submitting a PR, you politely ask, “how high?”

>>Waterl+A3
Agreed. As someone who uses AI (completion and Claude Code), I'll disclose whenever asked. But I disagree that it's "common courtesy" when not explicitly asked; since many people (including myself) don't mind and probably assume some AI, and it adds distraction (another useless small indicator; vaguely like dependabot, in that it steals my attention but ultimately I don't care).

>>armcha+Un
It’s not just common courtesy to disclose, it’s outright fraud not to disclose.

>>eschat+6v
That's nonsense. It's like feeling you need to disclose that your IDE has autocomplete. Nobody discloses that, since it's ridiculous. You only disclose that you used Claude Code if you are not certain of the result (e.g. you think it is correct, but the maintainer might be a better judge).

If it's exactly the same as what you'd have written manually, and you are confident it works, then what's the point of disclosure?

>>Aeolun+iw1
It’s completely different from an IDE’s autocomplete because autocomplete in an IDE is only helping you type identifiers that already exist in your codebase or in any SDKs you’re using.

An LLM is regurgitating things from outside that space, where you have no idea of the provenance of what it’s putting into your code.

It doesn’t just matter that the code you’re contributing to a project is correct, it matters quite a lot if it’s actually something you’re allowed to contribute.

- You can’t contribute code that your employer owns to a project if they don’t want you to. - You can’t contribute code under a license that the project doesn’t want you to use. - And you can’t contribute code written by someone else and claim it’s your intellectual property without some sort of contract in place to grant that.

If you use an LLM to generate code that you’re contributing, you have both of the latter two problems. And all of those apply *even if* the code you’re contributing is identical to what you’d have written by hand off the top of your head.

When you contribute to a project, you’re not just sending that project a set of bits, you’re making attestations about how those bits were created.

Why does this seem so difficult for some supposed tech professionals to understand? The entire industry is intellectual property, and this is basic “IP 101” stuff.