<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>AI on</title><link>https://oxisoft.io/tags/ai/</link><description>Recent content in AI on</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 15:17:11 +0200</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://oxisoft.io/tags/ai/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>AI-Driven Development with Claude Code: A Security and Privacy Argument</title><link>https://oxisoft.io/blog/ai-driven-development-with-claude-code/</link><pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://oxisoft.io/blog/ai-driven-development-with-claude-code/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;The usual story about AI coding tools is about speed. Write code faster. It is a real effect, and also the least interesting thing about using these tools every day.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A more interesting claim is that AI-assisted development, done carefully, often produces safer software than working by hand. Not because the model is smarter than a good engineer (it is not), but because it applies the boring safety rules without getting tired, and it makes certain checks cheap enough to actually run. This post is the long version of that claim, plus the places where it breaks.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>