dhanush

I was considering adding a permanent disclaimer to every blog post on my site about it not being AI written. Then I relented. Because I don’t have to explain to strangers on the internet that I wrote it myself. I like writing, and even if it is imperfect at times I’m okay with that. But I do catch myself editing my own words multiples times a day. Because I'm less sure if that sentence structure is truly mine or a side effect of me conversing with LLMs so much.

I'm trying to counter this by trying to read more fiction, but for every page that I read, I'm probably reading 50 pages or so of LLM output. So I think this is a battle I'm going to lose out on in the long term. And I can probably only delay the inevitable.

But yeah, I don't like beginning to lose or doubt my own writing voice one bit.

> I'm extremely sad that your job is like this. Keep in mind that it might be specific to your location.

I mean we're all using AI at my $DAY_JOB, yes. But I'm still responsible for the change itself. And I'm the first reviewer of all that work before it even becomes a PR.

Edit: at my $DAY_JOB

I really like this idea. I'm going to take this up and do this instead on my PRs.

> Why an AI specific account?

I'm toying with this idea where my primary account reflects work I did myself and with an LLM agent but I slowed down enough to understand what it did. Where I feel comfortable enough to put my name against that work. Because a lot of AI generated code turns out to be really embarassing and my primary account should portray the best of me.

A secondary account to separate the slop. And by default it can be assumed I didn't really spend much time verifying it all and am going more on "vibes". Eventually work from the AI account may make it into the primary account if its unslop'ed ever.

I haven't yet gone on to create an ai account, but might just do so.

> I imagine you'd like agents to stop signing commits unless asked to, but that would make even actual vibe coding a lot harder to detect.

In the context of $DAY_JOB, I don't think it matters anymore. And 99.99% of the commits is AI assisted / authored, so I find that information both redundant and something that takes away my agency from me. Putting my name on a commit means I take pride in it and that I want to ensure that I did my utmost best to verify it. With an LLM's co-author tag, I find myself slipping easily instead on this metric.

Yeah, my thought here is more towards what co-authored should mean and what ownership it implies. I think presence of an AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md is a good signal that I'm using this tool for this project and maybe don't need to repeat it for every commit that I make.

My personal feeling so far is, seeing claude code as co-author in my commits inevitably makes me not pay as much attention to the commit. And removing that forces me to really recognize that, hey this is my work. And I'd better make sure this is of the same quality that I would do otherwise. Kind of like a psychological hack maybe? But it seems to work better.

Overall, this is just a series of steps I'm taking to maintain my agency in my work.

Hi, author here. On the contrary I'm trying to go in a direction where AI usage is declared as a disclaimer in the project's README or similar. For work, it doesn't really matter because everyone's doing it and your usage stats are visible by admins. Here's what I wrote in the closing sentences in the post:

> What about attributions and disclaimers for AI generated work? If you’re concerned being transparent to anyone seeing your work, either create an AI specific account that commits with your name or add a big disclaimer to your project’s readme that this is AI slop and there be dragons.

Hope that helps clarify my stance. :)

Hi, author here. Yes, I agree and that's precisely what I wrote in the post:

> A few years ago I’d never have added Google or StackOverflow as co-authors. But I would have added a link to post that helped and I’ll continue to do so now.