Skip to content
HN On Hacker News ↗

no-ai-coauthors

▲ 12 points 12 comments by zethraeus 3w ago HN discussion ↗

Pangram verdict · v3.3

We believe that this document is fully human-written

0 %

AI likelihood · overall

Human
100% human-written 0% AI-generated
SEGMENTS · HUMAN 1 of 1
SEGMENTS · AI 0 of 1
WORD COUNT 149
PEAK AI % 0% · §1
Analyzed
Jun 23
backend: pangram/v3.3
Segments scanned
1 windows
avg 149 words each
Distribution
100 / 0%
human / AI fraction
Verdict
Human
Pangram v3.3

Article text · 149 words · 1 segments analyzed

Human AI-generated
§1 Human · 0%

the manifesto The byline is not a shared resource. AI co-author git-commit bylines are an impressive marketing hook — but they provide no useful signal of provenance. It is mid-2026. All code written is facilitated by a host of sophisticated tools. The most recent of these are AI ‘co-authors.’ These have incredible utility, but — as with the other tools in the development toolchain — they are not meaningfully accountable for their output. At best, tagging the bot that generated code as a ‘co-author’ adds noise to the single most important accountability and attribution mechanism in the development hierarchy. At worst, the practice implies similarly diffused responsibility. As much as the act of code authorship is changing, the social rules for authorship must not slip: we are responsible for our contributions.

The ‘author’ is, as ever, the contributing person. Remove corporate spam from commit messages. — No AI co-authors.