I'm not sold at the idea - for most projects it makes sense that the author of the PR should ultimately have ownership in the code that they're submitting. It doesn't matter if that's AI generated, generated with the help of other humans or typed up by a monkey.

> A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision. - IBM Training Manual, 1979

Splitting out AI into it's own entity invites a word of issues, AI cannot take ownership of the bugs it writes or the responsibility for the code to be good. That lies up to the human "co-author", if you want to use that phrase.

It seems like something like this should be added to the commit object/message itself, instead of git notes. Maybe as addition to Co-Authored-By trailer.

This would make sure this data is part of repository history (and commit SHA). Additional tooling can be still used to visualize it.

Wouldn't the thing to do to give them their own account id / email so we can use standard git blame tools?

Why do we need a plugin or new tools to accomplish this?

Don't know why this has been resubmitted and placed on the front of HN. (See 2day old peer comment) What's the feature of this post that warrants special treatment?

I believe GitLens has a version of this feature that I tried. To others points, seeing the person who actually committed it was more helpful.

you can use sandal with lw and tmp args https://github.com/ahmetozer/sandal, i hope it will help

Why!? What possible benefit is there to stuffing my git commit history with this noise?

Franky

repo: https://github.com/rbbydotdev/refined-github-with-ai-pr

Why not just look at the code and see if it's good or not?

> Projects like Zig may never allow ai contributions

Good luck enforcing that.

This extension is solving for the wrong problem and is actually only useful as some kind of ideology cudgel, it literally can only create friction. Nobody important cares if code is ai generated, they care if it solves problems correctly.