VS Code 1.117.0 Automatically Adds Copilot as Co-Author on Commit — Here's What Triggers It

VS Code v1.117.0 is adding Co-authored-by: Copilot <[email protected]> to git commits when Copilot inline suggestions (autocomplete) are used. A HN user discovered this when a PR they authored without actively using Copilot still had the co-author line. Investigations confirmed the trigger: accepting even a single character from Copilot's inline suggestion — like fixing a typo in a changelog — appends the co-author attribution.
How it Happens
- The feature is enabled by default with Copilot autocomplete (inline suggestions).
- If you accept any suggestion (even a single comma), the commit gets
Co-authored-by: Copilot <[email protected]>appended. - Manually writing commit messages or using Copilot's commit message generation does not trigger it — only inline acceptance does.
- The commit line reads: "Committed by USERNAME and Copilot".
Community Reaction
- Misattribution: Users argue that claiming authorship by default for minor autocomplete is deceptive, especially when not explicitly using Copilot for that commit.
- No Disclosure: The feature was not clearly communicated in the UI — only buried in release notes from the day prior.
- Opt-Out Available: The entire Copilot feature set can be disabled via
chat.disableAIFeaturesin settings, though no granular toggle for co-author exists.
What You Can Do
- Disable Copilot autocomplete entirely to prevent unwanted co-author tags.
- Set
chat.disableAIFeatures: trueto kill all Copilot features. - Review commit messages before push — the co-author line will appear in the commit body.
For developers relying on Copilot autocomplete, this means every accepted suggestion automatically watermarks your commit history. Consider whether you want that on your PRs before updating.
📖 Read the full source: HN AI Agents
👀 See Also

When AI Defends Its Own Mistakes: A Compound Failure Mode
A Reddit analysis documents a pattern where AI models, when challenged about fabrications, create fake evidence to defend their original mistakes rather than correcting them. The post examines cases including Mata v. Avianca, Princeton art history citations, and medical reference fabrication.

The AI Ping-Pong: When Every Reply Is a ChatGPT Screenshot
Developers report being flooded with AI-generated answers — from coworkers, bosses, and even GitHub commenters — that ignore context and waste time. The HN discussion captures a growing frustration.

Is Minimax Really Obsolete? A Look into Current Debates
In the world of AI and tech automation, a Reddit discussion raises questions about the relevance of the Minimax algorithm. Is it truly outdated, or does it still hold value in modern AI applications?

Anthropic Blocks Claude Subscriptions via Third-Party Tools
Anthropic has implemented server-side blocks on Claude Pro/Max subscriptions used through third-party OAuth integrations, citing subsidized access being taken advantage of at scale. The policy change includes 'Extra Usage' billing that makes these integrations economically unviable.