This springs to mind:

"On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question"

It's valid to argue that there's a problem with training models to comply to an extent where they will refuse to speak up when asked to do something fundamentally broken, but at the same time a lot of people get very annoyed when the models refuse to do what they're asked.

There is an actual problem here, though, even if part of the problem is competing expectations of refusal.

But in this case, the test is also a demonstration of exactly how not to use coding assistants: Don't constrain them in ways that create impossible choices for them.

I'd guess (I haven't tested) that you'd have decent odds of getting better results even just pasting the error message into an agent than adding stupid restrictions. And even better if you actually had a test case that verified valid output.

(and on a more general note, my experience is exactly the opposite of the writer's two first paragraphs)