Sometimes code generation is a useful tool, and maybe people have read and reviewed the generator.

The difference here is that the generator is a non-deterministic LLM and you can't reason about its output the same way.

I am not against the general use of AI code. Quite simply, my view is that all relevant context for a review should be disclosed in the PR.

AI and humans are not the same as authors of PRs. As an obvious example: one of the important functions of the PR process is to teach the writer about how to code in this project but LLMs fundamentally don't learn the same way as humans so there's a meaningful difference in context between humans and AIs.

If a human takes the care to really understand and assume authorship of the PR then it's not really an issue (and if they do, they could easily modify the Claude messages to remove "generated by Claude" notes manually) but instead it seems that Claude is just hiding relevant context from the reviewer. PRs without relevant context are always frustrating.

You don't generally commit compiled code to your VCS. If you do need to commit a binary for whatever reason, yeah it makes sense to explain how the binary was generated.

Don't be silly.

I use good ol' C-x M-c M-butterfly.

https://xkcd.com/378/