7 ms·

I may be missing something, but this is exactly what I want as a default. I want the session links there. I see PRs from my coworkers with session links. I st

• nonethewiser 18d ago
  Provenance, provenance, provenance
  • cromka 18d ago
    One of those words that Claude taught me
    • nonethewiser 18d ago
      Same. Over relied on and far less clear than alternatives 99% of the time. Claude is a shitty English writer that is only tolerated for it’s coding ability.
      • TeMPOraL 18d ago
        Nah, "provenance" is a good word to know. Plain English version would be, "what colour are your bits?".
        • nonethewiser 18d ago
          Good word to know, yes. Best word to use, no. If you know “origin” or “source” and those words suffice, using a word that means the same thing but you don’t know is strictly worse for communication. So if Claude is writing a novel, maybe provenance is the best word to use at times. If its a codebase README or variable name, its usually not.
          • cromka 17d ago
            LLMs haven't mastered the use of regular language that is the background of a jargon. Source and origin are exactly the word you'd use in IT.
• bad_haircut72 18d ago
  People are sick of Anthropic, and everyone, turning every little thing into a chance to manipulate reality in their favour.
• eli 18d ago
  It’s a default that changed silently during an automatic update. Also I frequently use an LLM to commit work that I have written. It is just misleading in that case.
  • ericyd 18d ago
    What's misleading? Wouldn't the session corroborate that it was only used for the commit?
    • eli 18d ago
      Only to me, the person with access to the session. It implies LLM generated to anyone looking at the commit.
    • skeledrew 18d ago
      Only if you deliberately made the session available for others to view. And they view it before jumping to conclusions.
    • altcognito 18d ago
      How would it know for certain it was used for a given commit? What if there was no code? What if the approach was different, but some lines were the same? I think some folks think that using an LLM is a shameful act and this is somehow shaming it and others believe that it ties back to the conversation. These conversations don't have any guarantee of being accessible over the long haul. If there was value in the conversation, the conversation should be somehow captured as well, not just some URLs.
  • deleted 18d ago
    [deleted]
  • klodolph 18d ago
    I think it’s foreseeable that if you use the LLM to commit work you’ve written, it might cause problems with attribution. In general I assume that attribution to AI is approximate. People copy-paste things out of chats and those don’t get attributed to the AI. And on the flip side, I’ve had AI write a commit, and then I’ve reverted it and written something different by hand (and it got tagged with an LLM session). The AI attribution is approximate and informative. The commit message and authorship are the more important parts. You may be concerned that people will think your commits are LLM-generated. I’m sorry that you have to work in that environment, but I don’t work in an environment like that and I don’t share your concerns.
• rvz 18d ago
  It is because many "developers" want to pretend that they have read the code and have understood it so they can claim it as their own. Attribution is indeed professional. If you use an AI to write the code for you and have no idea why you accepted the decisions it made nor can you explain them to another human, that would be clear evidence of acute skill atrophy.
  • 6d6b73 18d ago
    Do you add your IDE version to your commits, everytime you use autocomplete, or when you refactor the code and ask ide to replace all function names?
• Wowfunhappy 18d ago
  > Attribution is professional. It's also, like, kind of the point of using git, isn't it? So putting this in the commit message feels very appropriate to me.
• Someone1234 18d ago
  From my point of view; I share Debian's perspective: https://lwn.net/Articles/1091231/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1091231/ Which is actually why I DON'T like the session amended. Ultimately it is an ad placed into the Git log, and noise at that. Regardless of if it exists or not, the professional responsibility for what is contained in that PR/commit falls to the feet of the developer contributing it. Microsoft previously did this with Copilot, which was correctly met with a very negative response. I don't see why an ad by Anthropic is better than an ad from Microsoft.
  • ericyd 18d ago
    I'm not sure i see it as an ad. "Sent from my iPhone" is an ad because the iPhone is not a meaningful part of sending the email. Claude is a meaningful part of the commit though if you're using it, so to me it's more like clarity or transparency than an advertisement.
    • Jcampuzano2 18d ago
      The way I see it, the conversation transcript is the important part. The specific link to claude.ai nor the model itself is important to me. Otherwise we'll all just be linking out to 10 different AI model providers websites to see history. I'd rather it be some open solution. Models change so much that I don't really see why anybody cares what model was used to generate the code after the fact. It changes every few months and they're non-deterministic so its not like you'll ever "recreate" the same conversation yourself anyways.
      • TeMPOraL 17d ago
        UID itself is what is useful, regardless of whether or not you have access to the actual session transcript. One could argue that "https://claude.ai/<uid>" is slightly more verbose over "CLAUDE_UID=<uid>", but the former is also slightly more convenient for those with access to the transcript, and both have word "claude" in them, because you need to be able to tell which UID in the commit message is for what.
    • 18d ago
• ericyd 18d ago
  Most comments I read were positive, what kind of negative sentiment were you picking up in these comments?
• Betelbuddy 18d ago
  [dead]
• sparsesignal 18d ago
  I'm OK with the attribution, but I just didn't like a session URL appearing on a public repo all of a sudden. I was left wondering "did I just leak my private session?" I don't understand why it isn't opt-in. Or at least a heads-up somewhere.
  • saghm 18d ago
    At this point it's believable to me that Anthropic might not even be aware of what features get added in a given release. It's hard to tell the difference between "they actively are against documenting all of the defaults they keep changing" and "they genuinely don't even pay enough attention to notice when their vibe-coded changes have changed a default". Functionally they're the same, and both would stem from similar (lack of) values, but I think it does kind of matter because it's essentially the difference between explicitly crafting an experience for users versus defining same things they want and letting the vibes end up driving it towards a bunch of user-facing emergent properties that no one has considered. "Of course they were intentional in adding in an ad to everyone's git log" honestly night be the less cynical take, because the alternative is assuming that they actually look at git logs ever rather than only having Claude deal with it.
• cirego 18d ago
  I agree that attribution is professional. What I would worry about is people using the link to supply the reasoning behind the change without putting it into the commit message. Then you have the problem of needing to load the session to understand the change, when one would ideally be able to get that context from source control alone.
• Jcampuzano2 18d ago
  Realistically, what do you actually get from viewing people's sessions? I honestly don't really understand why people care. The specific model used can't be important because theres a new trending one every couple weeks nowadays. The conversation could be wildly out there and have 10+ different iterations of the same thing in it that led to the final product, etc. It's not like before AI we were asking people to explain every single iteration they went through in their commit body, or to see their entire internal dialogue. I don't really understand people's hype around needing to see the conversation they had with their AI. As long as the code itself is self-documented and final decisions are relatively well-documented future agents and humans will pick up on it much faster than reading the entire transcripts anyways. That's not even bringing into the fact that there are people who use multiple models, multiple sessions, multiple harnesses across the same commits/changesets. How do you reconcile those alongside people who could have made human changes in the end?
  • leoqa 18d ago
    People don’t want their incompetence displayed. The session is probably a series of “continue” prompts with basic understanding demonstrated in the initial ask.
    • MassiveQuasar 18d ago
      Do you also add all of your notes ever recorded to your PRs?
    • nibbleyou 18d ago
      I also wouldn't want people to have viewed my browser history on every commit pre-AI era.
  • arjie 18d ago
    There’s always been a school of thought that is in this direction. In the pre AI world people discussed whether to squash commits or to not and I was on the squash side because I think that the development artifact should be optimized for reading and just as one does not read a novel in all of its pre-edited forms to read it, one should not do so for code. The cost to grok using that method is too high. However with LLMs you can have them analyze prior transcripts to identify bug sources and so on. I could see it being used. But all theorycrafting. And perhaps motivated reasoning. I’ve always committed early and often and used bisect to find bugs. That places me right away in the squash commits camp because of the method I use to write code.
• gedy 18d ago
  Sure, but it does spook some people like me where I frequently mention context in session like: "it would be better to fix this on the backend, but that is a separate team that moves VERY slowly", etc. And I don't want that accidentally getting broadcast.
  • lawrjone 18d ago
    Am I misunderstanding this change? This makes it sound like Claude is attaching the entire session content when I thought it was only a link that is exclusively readable by the author, unless deliberately shared?
• vorticalbox 18d ago
  Why not use something like openspec? You get the benefits of context without a whole conversation to read. https://openspec.dev/ https://openspec.dev/
  • alasano 18d ago
    I use and love openspec and I'm against this session attribution by default setting. But I do see the value in seeing the conversation that lead to the spec. I make sure that all product decisions go through me prior to the agent writing the spec and the questions I ask and decisions I make could definitely help understand retroactively why something is the way it is. I guess with the default openspec schema you wouldn't have that but you could customize it or create your own in which the reasoning is encoded fully.
• jatins 18d ago
  I talk to Claude like no one is going to read it. full of typos, often via voice where I am literally just thinking out loud. I don’t think anyone will find it valuable and I don’t want anyone to read it
  • andrekandre 17d ago
    ai has been an excuse for people to shove into pr's all kinds of shit that would never be tolerated otherwise; from super long descriptions to annoying emojis in commit messages and overly verbose comments and code that has the mpg of a broken scooter...
• CJefferson 18d ago
  I don’t attach a raw dump of all the conversations I have with colleagues to my commit messages, and wouldn’t want to work in a place where I did. Sometimes I tell Claude ‘don’t trust file X, it was written by a colleague who writes awful tests’. I don’t want that in my commit messages.
• _boffin_ 18d ago
  One thing I’ve done is a few books and check what branch / work tree user is on. Allows for more fidelity than even this. Works quite well. I just wish they allow for getting inside subscription pricing vs outside subscription pricing easier
• barbazoo 18d ago
  Same here, cool, now Claude can grab the context from the session to reason better about why things are the way they are. Maybe an ID alone would have been better, not a whole http url.
  • bbg2401 18d ago
    It feels like an absolute failure of project management if your tooling needs to attach a session identifier in a git commit message for it to understand what’s going on. Wikis, changelogs, decision records, issue trackers and more are available to provide greater context for you, your team and the agents you deploy.
    • barbazoo 18d ago
      One of many signals. Using AI efficiently is all about leaving breadcrumbs everywhere.
• nlawalker 18d ago
  >This is attribution. I think a lot of people interpret it as trying to foist additional burden on reviewers. As in "here's my PR, I would like to take credit for this idea, it's now on you to review. If you find a problem with it, I expect you to call out exactly what my incorrect assumptions were, which you are able to do because they're all buried somewhere in this Claude session. Let me know what they are and I'll paste them into a new session and submit again."
  • shiandow 18d ago
    Seems like an excellent way to optimize yourself out of a job, both figuratively and literally. So no, I'm not going to assume that's what someone meant. I can at least pretend I consider people to be competent.
• _zoltan_ 18d ago
  hard disagree. I'm not gonna read the session log, and I don't care for it at all. as for the commit message: if it's the usual verbose Claude style, I'm also not going to read it. to be honest, probably if it's not verbose, I'm still not reading it. I'll ask my review agent anyway to summarize your code. My review agent will read your commit message.
  • othmanosx 17d ago
    Curious to know, do you read the code first or the summary? How much value do you think AI generated summaries are adding to the review process?
    • _zoltan_ 17d ago
      I read the summary which for me focuses on intent: What's the current state, why it's not good, what is being changed and how, and then look at performance numbers. Then I read the code but only after it got scrutinized by pr review skills on multiple models and those feedback got marked completed by the author.
      • othmanosx 15d ago
        Yeah, same here, but I do not pay that much attention to the PR description since it's all written by the same AI, it just narrates its own code. I prefer to skim it then jump to the code. The problem thesis is already in the ticket, so we could just reference it in the PR without duplication. The current state and how it's being changed are already the code diff itself under the changes tab, right? Reading it straight makes me question the code better since the AI is usually overconfident in its writing, so I don't focus on it unless I face a hard blocker or constraint that should be mentioned there. I also do this with my swarm of review agents, asking them to review the code without context, that way, they produce more high-quality feedback that is backed by self-sourcing the context from the codebase instead of relying on the AI-provided PR description that might justify a code change that others might disagree with otherwise. it works well especially with code changes that could miss other parts of the codebase during refactoring or implementing features that touch multiple domains.
• matheusmoreira 18d ago
  > This is attribution. More like an ad for trillion dollar corporations. Not in the business of giving those out for free. Attribution also helps people who want to judge others for using AI. Not even slightly interested in enabling any form of prejudice and stigma against myself. Even the markdown files that agents use don't go into my master branches anymore.
• rlpb 18d ago
  I think there's a distinction between attribution and linking to something nobody else can necessarily access. Placing a path to my local build is something I'd avoid because it's irrelevant to everyone else. I think the same applies here.
• throwatdem12311 18d ago
  I don’t give a flying f*ck what you prompted the LLM I only care if your code is good. Do you put IDE attribution in your commits? Attribution is silly, AIs are hammers not interns. Though reading you yelling at the bot and calling it a Clanker might elicit a chuckle from me.
• rcarmo 17d ago
  Having it there by default is an ad. Turning it on explicitly is a dev tool.