furst/coding-with-ai
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Reframe from three modes to two worlds

Browse source 
Restructures section 01 from "web chat / in-editor / agentic" into "web
chat vs. tools that live with your code," with the autocomplete /
in-project chat / agentic spectrum as a sub-structure of the latter.
Inline edits are reduced to a historical note tied to the 2023
instruction-tuned LLM era.

- Rename 01-three-modes -> 01-two-worlds and 03-in-editor-workflow ->
  03-autocomplete; section 03 narrows to autocomplete (ghost text habits,
  the autocomplete-your-verification trap)
- Section 04 reframes in-project chat as the default venue, web chat as
  a special-case venue; adds "Carrying context across sessions" covering
  dev-log.md, CLAUDE.md, .cursorrules
- Section 05 reworks intro to contrast against in-project chat instead
  of "editor extension"; tightens prose and removes em-dashes
- Update cross-references and tool-mode language in 02, 06, 07, and
  the root README to match the new framing
- Swap the CRDT example in section 04 for finite-volume methods, fitting
  the CHEG audience
- Minor typo/wording fixes

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Eric Furst 2026-05-28 23:01:09 -04:00
commit d2ca02bd90
10 changed files with 308 additions and 270 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
06-verifying-and-citing/README.md
View file

@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ Trust is not "the model is bad at X." It's "the *consequence* of being wrong abo
## Part 2: Privacy and IP
### Baseline: the same risk profile as other cloud services
### Baseline: similar risk profile as other cloud services
When you paste content into a chat, that content is sent to the service. Editor extensions and agents do the same with the files they read. This is the same baseline as Gmail, Google Drive, GitHub, OneDrive, Dropbox, or any other cloud service you already use. In these cases, your content lives on someone else's servers, subject to their data-handling policies. For most academic and research work, including coursework, classroom code, public datasets, open-source libraries, drafts of your own writing, the privacy risk is no different from what you accept every time you use those other services.
@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ When you paste content into a chat, that content is sent to the service. Editor
The genuine differences are narrower than the general "the cloud is watching" framing suggests, but they are real:
1. **Training-data inclusion.** Gmail and Drive do not train on your content. AI services historically have, varying by the provider and the plan. WHile defaults have been changing, and most paid and enterprise tiers now opt out, the precedent is real and there is no Gmail equivalent. Check the current setting for the service you use.
1. **Training-data inclusion.** Gmail and Drive do not train on your content. AI services historically have, varying by the provider and the plan. While defaults have been changing, and most paid and enterprise tiers now opt out, the precedent is real and there is no Gmail equivalent. Check the current setting for the service you use.
2. **Aggregation richness.** A chat history reveals more than an email archive. What you are working on, what you do not know, what you are puzzling over. These can accumulate in conversations in a way they do not in inboxes. Aggregated chat history is potentially a richer and more sensitive documentation of your work than aggregated email is.
3. **Routine review of flagged content.** Most AI services explicitly reserve the right to have humans review conversations flagged by their safety systems. Gmail has no equivalent "if our spam filter trips, a person may read this" policy. In practice your conversations are almost certainly not reviewed, but the legal posture is different.