Hacker News Reader

If IDEA recorded my manual edits as events and attached a transcript to my commits I don't think I'd mind. If they just tagged it to put their name in that's different.

Knowing which model created the code has more "weight" to it than the editor IMHO which is why I think this is different. Adding the session link is a nice touch.

View on HN

In my last project I wrote most stuff by hand but also used various Anthropic models, Gemini something and GLM 5.2. By line count the #1 was probably the IDE autocomplete though mostly for boring field initializations and the likes. The "hardest" part was some reverse engineering by GLM that Claude refused but that resultend in zero lines directly. So, how to attribute this?

Allowing tools to insert themselves into the git history only makes sense if you are purely vibecoding with a single model and don't even bother to check and clean it up anymore. Is this truly the default state of software development already? How the times have changed.

I suspect that in the future, lawyers are going to start counseling businesses to implement line-by-line provenance of their source code so they’re prepared for future copyright infringement disputes. Business leaders may also start wanting metrics to understand the impact of AI on development in a more detailed way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com