zlacker

Wouldn't the thing to do to give them their own account id / email so we can use standard git blame tools?

Why do we need a plugin or new tools to accomplish this?

Don't know why this has been resubmitted and placed on the front of HN. (See 2day old peer comment) What's the feature of this post that warrants special treatment?

>>verdve+(OP)
That would cost a seat, I'm guessing.

>>verdve+(OP)
Giving it its own id doesn't store all the useful metadata this tool preserves, like the model and prompt that generated the code

>>verdve+(OP)
I guess because 99% of generated code will likely need significant edits, so you'd never want to commit direct "AI contributions" - you don't commit every time you take something from StackOverflow, likewise I wonder if people might start adding credit comments to LLMs?

>>Anonbr+p5
ADK does that for me in a database, which I've extended to use Dagger for complete environment and history in OCI

>>jayd16+15
I'm using '(human)' and '(agent)' prefix as a poor mans alternative

>>verdve+(OP)
Many posts get resubmitted if someone finds them interesting and, if it's been a few days, they generally get "second-chance" treatment. That means they'll be able to make it to the front-page based on upvotes, if they didn't make it the first time.

>>verdve+(OP)
> Wouldn't the thing to do be to give AI its own account id / email so we can use standard git blame tools?

That’s a reasonable idea and something I considered. The issue is that AI assistance is often inline and mixed with human edits within a single commit (tab completion, partial rewrites, refactors). Treating AI as a separate Git author would require artificial commit boundaries or constant context switching. That quickly becomes tedious and produces noisy or misleading history, especially once commits are squashed.

> Why do we need a plugin or new tools to accomplish this?

There’s currently no friction‑less way to attribute AI‑assisted code, especially for non–turn‑based workflows like Copilot or Cursor completions. In those cases, human and machine edits are interleaved at the line level and collapse into a single author at commit time. Existing Git and blame tooling can’t express that distinction. This is an experiment to complement—not replace—existing contributor workflows.

PS: I asked for a resubmission and was encouraged to try again :)

>>rbbydo+B9
> PS: I asked for a resubmission and was encouraged to try again :)

Thanks! I wanted to see if I could get someone else's submission the special treatment. I'll reach out to dang

>>nightp+K7
There are a couple of paths to resubmission, the auto dedup if close enough in time vs fresh post / id. There are also instances where the HN team tilts the scale a bit (typically placing it on the front iirc)

I was curious which path this post took, OP answered in a peer comment

>>jayd16+15
how much is this solution like this going to cost you per current seat?

On one hand, I would imagine companies like GitHub will not charge for agent accounts because they want to encourage their use and see the cost recouped by token usage. On the other hand, Microslop is greedy af and struggling to sell their ai products

>>verdve+(OP)
I think the special feature is that it tracks on a per line basis in a blended commit what AI is doing vs. whole commits. not sure the utility of it.

>>maarti+w5
> I guess because 99% of generated code will likely need significant edits

What are you guessing / basing this on?

I have many commits with zero human editing. The relative split is def well away from a 99% vs 1% at this point for any edits, most remaining edits for me are only minor, not "significant"