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?

4 points | by hartleybrody 1 day ago

2 comments

  • not_your_vase 1 day ago
    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.
    [-]
  • ailabs_hq 1 day ago
    Do we need to unless you want to indemnify yourself