[RogerL]

Claude does these things even though you have explicit instructions not to do them, this isn't a tool for you asking it to delete files.

Just today Claude decided to do a git restore on me, blowing away local changes, despite having strict instructions to do nothing with git except to use it to look at history and branches.

Why jump to the conclusion that the person is so incompetent with no evidence?

[intev]

Because there's now a class of programmers who are very anti AI when it comes to coding because they think anybody who relies on it are degenerate vibe coders who have no idea what they are doing. You can see this in pretty much every single HN post w.r.t AI and coding.

[WolfeReader]

There is indeed a class of programmers who think AI over-reliance will make us worse. And there should be, because it's true.

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/1/6

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4812513

[blackqueeriroh]

Did you even read the abstracts of these papers?

The first one has four important phrases: “negative correlation,” “mediated by increased cognitive offloading,” “higher educational attainment was associated with better critical thinking skills, regardless of AI usage,” and “potential costs.”

The second paper has two: “students using GenAI tools score on average 6.71 (out of 100) points lower than non-users,” and “suggesting an effect whereby GenAI tool usage hinders learning.”

I ask you, sir, where exactly do you get “AI over-reliance will make us worse…because it’s true” from TWO studies that go out of their way to make it clear there is no causative link, only correlation, point out significant mediations of the effect, identify only potentiality, and also show only half a letter grade difference, which when you’re dealing with students could be down to all sorts of things. Not to mention we’re dealing with one preprint and some truly confounding study design.

If you don’t understand research methods, please stop presenting papers as if they are empirical authorities on truth.

It diminishes trust in real academic work.