Why does the commit editor hide the coauthored message? Why not pre-populate the text field and users take or leave it when committing?

I think this is a good point - perhaps there should be some commit-time UI which would let the user make the choice. Thanks for the suggestion!

What do you mean they aren’t part of the commit message? Trailers like (signed off by) are absolutely part of the message. Tools can choose to treat them as special metadata, but they’re part of the commit.

The docs for the function to interpret trailers even says this explicitly: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-interpret-trailers

> Add or parse structured information in commit messages

I mean that they’re not necessarily part of the --message parameter to `git commit`, but instead part of the --trailer parameter. I don’t know how VSCode is programmed, but it seems plausible that trailers are handled separately from the message parameter.

https://git-scm.com/docs/git-commit

We're talking about Git here. The question is not "how VSCode is programmed", the question is "does Git have a special field for commit trailers". The answer is no. Git stores the trailer as part of the commit message.

If you look at the comment I’m responding to, it is in fact about how VSCode is programmed; specifically, a possible reason why the Co-Authored-By trailer doesn’t show up in VSCode’s commit message box.

It seems like it would be most reasonable to consider porcelain vs. plumbing command details in deciding if something is logically distinct to Git. git-commit has --message and --trailer options, git-commit-tree has a --message option. I take that as trailer is a convenience option to provide a consistent way to append those details to the commit message. But that doesn't mean it's not part of the commit message, nor that the user shouldn't see it while reviewing the commit message.

I agree with the sentiment on many of these comments. Understanding something is work and that can’t be offloaded to others or even LLMs.

OpenClaw can just rebrand again, problem solved!

Isn’t this still true for the large language models and math is detected and handled by an external tool? Anything you can give as a source for the latest state of the art?

No? I’ve never heard of that tbh.

Then you are the one with the information out of date, because that is absolutely the case.

One reason is that AI can create PRs at a scale that can just overwhelm maintainers not to mention drowning out non-AI PRs.

Why can’t people add a disclaimer when their text was written or edited with AI? That is my completely unrealistic wish for the world today…

We are going to need some proof on cleanliness for art, writing etc. At some point it will become impossible to tell if you are interacting with a bot and that is when the internet dies.

The unavoidable endgame is relying on local (= country level) authentication providers.

So you couple the identify issued by your government to the device or to an online middle man service.

How would that help? I can authenticate my bot or just copy-paste bot output.

That approach would work but doesn't scale well and scaling is the problem that AI brings to the Internet.

Definitely goes back earlier for software. See the Mythical Man Month… Growing a team imposes a communication cost.

This account seems like LLM slop looking at the post history. Who starts every post ‘from Japan’?

I don’t want to interact with hidden chat bots on HN. The irony of this comment about accountability is also frustrating.

They have a post describing themselves as not a programmer, and one as "as engineers". It's got all the hallmarks (lists, "not just but", bolding when you can't). But what really got me was this conversation literally about why they're not AI! It's insanity, and now I'm convinced it's at least a few accounts in tandem, if not more.

Someone else, please, scroll through the account, then read this thread and tell me I'm not crazy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46439821

This sub thread really doesn’t add value to the discussion IMO and isn’t a fit for HN. The only likely outcome is a real human is attacked based on pure speculation. Let the mods decide if a user is breaking any policy regarding AI comment submissions. Litigating it here is cringe.

I would go even further and say AI witch hunts aren't productive, period. In this case where the person writing is ostensibly writing in a second language it's even more silly

Japanese people talk like this.

Merry Christmas hackers!

Sending power outage context to the vehicles does not seem like enough of a response. I hope at least they have internal plans for more. For large, complex systems, you want multiple layers of protections. The response feels way too reactive when they could use this incident to guide improvements across the board.