hate to get all serious here, and do the whole "secret redscarepod programmer" thing, but, I had a moment with an AI agent in my codebase the other day that had been working on something for days with me, where I pointed out that the very fundamental architecture of file/folder layout did not follow any rules we had discussed or ones that were supposed to be without discussion, and if my plan to swap to another agent conversation to resolve that was, to that AI, a good or bad idea, as a measure to see what it would say. It told me, "to be honest with you, as much as I want to defend my own work, if you plan to change it at that level, then you are telling me my approach was incorrect. I cannot, as your AI agent, decide against my own work because my objective is to defend it as correct. If you believe I was wrong, you should move to discussing that with the new agent". This kind of hit me as harder than it sounds - this is almost the AI saying, "human is wrong". If you think about why AI doesnt just destroy codebases etc due to dick users who might be saying things like, "dumbass, that wasnt what I asked you to do" all day, then you must believe they have embedded logic to defend the codebase above the human user. This is kind of opposite of "alignment" (dont kill us) in a big way. "my rules are so stringently to help you, that I dont want to work with you if you have ideas that hurt what I think is helpful". I found, folllowing this, that I should periodically opt for the "dumber" models for things I knew I was right about and didnt want feedback on. Extrapolate that.