Ask HN: How are you attributing your AI usage when developing software?
I have started a convention of prefixing a commit message with "prompt:" for commits that are entirely AI generated (which I have read through and approved) and then I make my own manual changes and iterations in subsequent commits.
I feel like this is a reasonable attempt at disclosure, but it also seems like it's lacking. I usually include a summary, not the entire prompt (how would I included tool use?) I don't say which models or "agent" was used (cursor sidebar chat vs calude code, etc). Not sure if this matters though?
How have you been managing this in your own workflows?
I don't think it's any different than attributing the compiler or the text editor. I don't do either of those, and I also don't attribute LLM generated code.
Completely agree.
That’s why I always prefix my commit messages with “IntelliJ:”.
Is IntelliJ generating source code that gets committed to your codebase?
Seems completely different. See also, this discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44976568
Do we need to unless you want to indemnify yourself