Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I am asking my team to flag git commits with a lot of LLM/Agent use with something like:

[ai]: rewrote the documentation ...

This is helps us to put another set of "glasses" as we later review the code.



I think it's a good idea, it does disrupt some of the traditional workflows though.

If you use AI as tab-complete but it's what you would've done anyway, should you flag it? I don't know, plenty to think about when it comes to what the right amount of disclosure is.

I certainly wish that with our company, people could flag (particularly) large commits as coming from a tool rather than a person, but I guess the idea is that the person is still responsible for whatever the tool generates.

The problem is that it's incredibly enticing for over-worked engineers to have AI do large (ie. diffs) but boring tasks that they'd typically get very little recognition for (eg. ESLint migrations).




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: