What perceived problem do you have with reading the LLM-generated commit, understanding its purpose and submitting your own PR solving the same problem in practically the same manner?
Without knowing more about which of the many reasons you might find LLM commits unethical or otherwise bad it is impossible to give any reponse.
This is a question of principle.
The objective is to gain the ability to rightfully claim "I have written this".
There are a number of imaginable reasons to want this.
Copyright, ethics, upstream project policy, you name it.
To put it to the extreme:
Let's say I take the commit as is, typing what I learned verbatim off the screen as is but removing the "Co-authored by" note of the commit message. Then the LLM provider sues me, claiming I have no right to remote the note. Who would win in a court of law?
I am not looking for binding legal advise here of course, I am just interested in what people here think.
What perceived problem do you have with reading the LLM-generated commit, understanding its purpose and submitting your own PR solving the same problem in practically the same manner?
Without knowing more about which of the many reasons you might find LLM commits unethical or otherwise bad it is impossible to give any reponse.
This is a question of principle. The objective is to gain the ability to rightfully claim "I have written this". There are a number of imaginable reasons to want this. Copyright, ethics, upstream project policy, you name it.
To put it to the extreme: Let's say I take the commit as is, typing what I learned verbatim off the screen as is but removing the "Co-authored by" note of the commit message. Then the LLM provider sues me, claiming I have no right to remote the note. Who would win in a court of law? I am not looking for binding legal advise here of course, I am just interested in what people here think.