待翻译：Human vs. AI – Diff-based line-level provenance for text under agentic editing

AI 服务暂时不可用，以下为来源正文，待恢复后补全翻译。

Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings Fork 0 Star 1 BranchesTags Open more actions menu Folders and files NameName Last commit message Last commit date Latest commit History 43 Commits 43 Commits src/et/uvt src/et/uvt test/et/uvt test/et/uvt .gitignore .gitignore Makefile Makefile README.md README.md deps.edn deps.edn title_image.png title_image.png Repository files navigation Line-level provenance for text under agentic editing — who wrote this line, us or them? — derived from a text's version history. Use it as library or as CLI tool. The problem With agentic coding and editing, provenance becomes a pertinent question. Text a human wrote or edited should be considered close to sacred: an agent should be hesitant and have a very good reason to touch it. Slop another agent has produced, on the other hand, is completely up for grabs. A use case for this: Take a mostly vibecoded app in which you want to establish some corners in the code where you want to assert your ideas and ownership. You surely don't want another agent bulldoze over this piece of code in the next session. Another use case: the README.md, originally generated, where you rewrite the opening paragraphs. The agent should feel free to redo or append parts further downwards but should really think twice changing anything in the opener. How it works The main constraint under which this should work is that this should not require for text to be marked up specifically for that. Omnipresent plain text (markdown) should be supported as is. The only thing to leverage then, is that each new version of a text is created under identifable authorship - of either a human or an agent. The output of an evaluation over a given text is a set of ranges — "islands" of human-authored lines inside a "sea" of machine generated text. Technically based on simple diffing, this is the guiding metaphor for development of the algorithm. We don't want to track authorship of individual lines only, but of meaningfully coherent pieces of text. So joining, splitting apart, and dilution of authorship are behaviours to be factored in, also in such a manner that we don't converge in full sea or full island. Usage Using us-vs-them as CLI tool requires bbin for a local install. make install A git repository is already a history of versions each carrying a provenance marker — every revision of the file, in order, with the author of the change that made it. To use it anywhere inside a git repository: us-vs-them --ours [email protected] README.md This yields a listing like 1-3 0.00 4 1.00 5-7 0.00 8-20 0.46 21-164 0.00 where 1.0 means fully human authored range. 0.46 means originally human authored range, modified by agents to a certain degree. 0.00 means fully agent authored. Parameters are: --ours: these are the humans, everonee else is considered an agent --theirs: these are agents, everyone else is considered human Name whichever side is the shorter list. Passing both arguments at the same time will be rejected. Development make test Behaviour The best way to understand the behaviour is to have a look at caution_test.clj. Activity Stars 1 star Watchers 0 watching Forks 0 forks Report repository