You don't see how a link to "https://claude.ai/.." in the Git log is an ad for Cluade/Anthropic? It feels exactly like "Sent from an iPhone" to me, and has exactly the same value to people reviewing the Git log later (i.e. none).

Keep in mind that if you run across someone else's spam in the Git logs:

- You need a Claude account.

- You need permission to view the session.

The only people who can just follow that link and look at how Claude was used, is Anthropic themselves. Therefore, they can also use it as an additional mechanism to tie sessions back to other IDs/identities. For everyone else this is "Sent from an iPhone" but longer.

If I put a link to the Jira ticket the commit fixes, is that an ad for Atlassian?

Good counterpoint. We link to GitHub from JIRA, and the reverse. Linking to the Claude session that generated the code seems reasonable...it's a related artifact.

One thing I'm not sure about: what is the utility of linking to the session? What are folks expected to do with that data?

for one thing, understanding how the final code ended up that way. it's hard to tell with code alone wherever something is designed or cargo culted.

If _you_ choose to do it, no.

If the tool auto-does it, yes.

You still choose to configure the tool. "It's the default" is only an excuse for the very first time you notice it.

But presumably everyone in your company/team is using Jira, so it's not an "ad" because it's a product already used internally. Claude is appending these links to all commits by default, whether or not others on the team use Claude. Those are very different things.

For me, no. I’ve started tracking session ID on every ticket I work on in order to be able to find them again.

Having it in the commit message is handy (not to mentioned I already have it I. The commit message).

The way I see it, the conversation transcript is the important part. The specific link to claude.ai nor the model itself is important to me. Otherwise we'll all just be linking out to 10 different AI model providers websites to see history. I'd rather it be some open solution.

Models change so much that I don't really see why anybody cares what model was used to generate the code after the fact. It changes every few months and they're non-deterministic so its not like you'll ever "recreate" the same conversation yourself anyways.

My spade is a meaningful part of digging a hole when I plant a tree, but I still don't want a "Spear and Jackson" sign on my tree when I'm done.

There has been more than I project where I literally didn’t even look at the code.

I prompted what amounts to verbose “I want X” and then did QA. I’m perfectly happy with an LLM being credited with that code and there being no copyright existing for that code.

For some people that is their life’s work and they want to clutch pearls. Their sole contribution was a half baked idea and they shipped QA out to their “users” but they want to be credited with any rights.

There is definitely a continuum in LLM usage for code, do I agree with an AI blindly stamping every commit, not really.

Do I see LLM generated code as equivalent to me digging a hole with a shovel, it depends. Sometimes there was very little shovelling, other times there was no me involved and you may as well credit the entire hole to the shovel.

Where this will come in is when it comes to copyright and licensing.

If your entire product is LLM generated you sure as hell have no right to place any license on there other than potentially a MIT equivalent license, even that is dubious though but from an organisational standpoint MIT probably will be more widely accepted than saying it is uncopyrightable.

My argument being I would rather know that you didn’t even look at the code, which is what this will achieve, whether I agree with it or not at the very least it will make it easier to sift through the garbage.

This is a problem with copyright in general. There's no longer any requirement to provide information about copyright status, so there's no way for the public to know whether something is copyrighted (no doubt the uncertainty is intentional as an additional way to undermine the public domain). This is just as true for expired copyrights, or material placed in the public domain intentionally.

The solution isn't to add notices to non-copyrighted things; it's to require notice for copyrighted things, including date.

Individually, of course, one should simply assume things are not copyrighted if you have no way to know, and do whatever you want. If the author can't be bothered to tell you, you have no moral responsibility to care.

> If your entire product is LLM generated you sure as hell have no right to place any license on there

Something you’ve created from nothing because of the tool you’ve used to create it should not be allowed to be licensed?

> "Sent from my iPhone" is an ad because the iPhone is not a meaningful part of sending the email.

It explains the brevity and any typos. That's how I see it used.