Claude Code is a tool that you paid for. Usually, you don’t get advertisement in a tool you have paid for. So when Claude appends “Co-authored by Claude” to every commit message, it is only natural it would raise an eyebrow.
It’s not a simple matter, either: disclosing AI generated content might be a good idea, but it has so many edge cases you can cut yourself if you are not careful.
First of all, it might generate this for a commit it didn’t even contribute to (part from the commit message). That’s a stretch to call it co-authoring.
Then–at least for me–this disclaimer suggests that Claude did more than half of the work, while in reality it was merely instructed to execute a set of tasks. The idea was mine, the control is mine, I might very well be responsible for the commit and take credit for it.
You don’t credit Microsoft PowerPoint for the keynote you made or say that built in calculator app “co-authored” you financial analysis. LLMs are tools, not sentient beings. In fact, they have a private owner–the company that rents it to you.
And this is where the third thing comes into the light: intellectual property rights. Oh boy, is it a grey area with this one.
Models providers had to source huge amounts of data to train their models and as far as I know each mode weight doesn’t have “co-authored by this YouTuber” or “co-authored by this blogger” on them. Furthermore, what happens when you make a commit–which is signed off by you–that mentions such co-authoring?
Would that legally transfer some of the rights to it to the company that rented you the model? We don’t know yet, and when there is ambiguity it is better to play safe.
I started writing this post with no strict position on this matter. But in the process of writing it I think I see that there are really no redeeming qualities for doing this the way it is being done currently.