AI

That is the second time this morning. Once again, without a word, Claude Code co-signed my commit.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

When I point it out, it apologises flatly and does it again.

Yet I had written, in capitals, in my global CLAUDE.md:

NEVER append a Co-Authored by Claude in commit description

That is the file Claude Code loads in every session.

I say publicly that I use AI, but I answer for my code. With that line added, a client may wonder who is accountable for the code, a maintainer what “co-author” implies, when neither question should arise at all. Co-signing is not assisting, it is claiming authorship.

…and How AI Made Him a Mason

My psychological profile is INTJ¹, also known as the Architect, and I spent a good part of my life proving that this label fit… in the worst possible way.

Years of having a multitude of ideas

• on analysis systems (Blockchain, Productivity)
• on personal development methods (Memory, Discipline, Learning)
• on algorithms (routing, metacompression, encryption)
• on tools (format conversion, project management, system administration)

Years of producing hundreds of ideas in a row, for nothing, or worse, only to see some of them realized by others years later.

Faced with an AI capable of compiling our intentions into working programs, I ask myself: does our craft reduce to assembling syntax, or does it hide a dimension that is by nature beyond computation?

I was 17 when I finally got my hands on “The Art of Computer Programming” by Donald Knuth. At the time, in 1989, reference books on programming were rare and the 4 volumes of TAOCP had the status of a “bible”; it remains for me a reference work that every computer scientist should read.