I was trying to follow similar rules, until one day I had to solve a hard mathematical problem. Claude is a phd level mathematician, I am not. I, however, know exactly the properties of the desired solution and how to test it’s correct. So I decided to keep Claude’s solution over my basic, naive one. I mentioned that in the pull request and everyone agreed that was the right call. Would you open exceptions like that in your rules? What if AI becomes so much better at coding than you , not just at doing advanced mathematics? Would you then stop to write code by hand completely since that would be the less optimal option, despite you losing your ability to judge the code directly at that point (and as in my example, you can still judge tests, hopefully)? I think these are the more interesting questions right now.

> Claude is a phd level mathematician

Unfortunately, it is not, and many of its attempts at mathematical proofs have major flaws. You shouldn't trust its proofs unless you are already able to evaluate them--which I think is pretty much all the OP is saying.

> Claude is a phd level mathematician , I am not

I’m going to guess that this is Gell-Mann amnesia more than anything, and it’s going to get a lot of organizations into a lot of weird places.