Human vs. AI – Diff-based line-level provenance for text under agentic editing
Them Line-level provenance for text under agentic editing — who wrote this line, us or them? — derived from a text's version history. 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.
- ▪Them Line-level provenance for text under agentic editing — who wrote this line, us or them? — derived from a text's version history.
- ▪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.
Hacker News (AI / LLM) files mainly under ai. We currently carry 4,176 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | GitHub |
| Canonical URL | https://github.com/eighttrigrams/us-vs-them |
| Publication time | Sun, 09 Aug 2026 15:25:29 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-08-09T15:25:43.158Z |
| Last seen | 2026-08-09T15:25:43.158Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | B3FlcfEhXxjx · 1 stories |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Us vs. Them 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.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at GitHub.