I think it’s foreseeable that if you use the LLM to commit work you’ve written, it might cause problems with attribution.

In general I assume that attribution to AI is approximate. People copy-paste things out of chats and those don’t get attributed to the AI. And on the flip side, I’ve had AI write a commit, and then I’ve reverted it and written something different by hand (and it got tagged with an LLM session).

The AI attribution is approximate and informative. The commit message and authorship are the more important parts.

You may be concerned that people will think your commits are LLM-generated. I’m sorry that you have to work in that environment, but I don’t work in an environment like that and I don’t share your concerns.

What's misleading? Wouldn't the session corroborate that it was only used for the commit?

Only to me, the person with access to the session. It implies LLM generated to anyone looking at the commit.

How would it know for certain it was used for a given commit? What if there was no code? What if the approach was different, but some lines were the same?

I think some folks think that using an LLM is a shameful act and this is somehow shaming it and others believe that it ties back to the conversation. These conversations don't have any guarantee of being accessible over the long haul. If there was value in the conversation, the conversation should be somehow captured as well, not just some URLs.

Only if you deliberately made the session available for others to view. And they view it before jumping to conclusions.