@futurebird a bit late to the thread but this sounds a lot like the phenomenon of livestreamers when they play a new video game for the first time - they make a lot of noise in the first few minutes about settings and controls and how they like this or don't like that. When the barrier to playing feels high and their energy level is low they may quit before feeling involved in the game and leave a remark about some aspect of polish that they weren't happy with. I've worked on games like that and addressed literally every polish item. Then they find an excuse like "uh, it looks really promising but not for me". I did a lot of browbeating at demo nights to get a sense of what player feedback's limits were, because beyond a certain point they just don't know what they want and don't have answers for why it feels bad or they got overwhelmed or intimidated by the experience.
If the game is well-constructed it doesn't rely on explicit hand-holding to march them through - it rapidly involves them in a puzzle or process that warms up some plan or mental model of what is going on. It lets them build up their energy investment as they do this, and then their rate of utterances slows down dramatically and becomes less "i don't get it, i need help, this sucks" and more "hmm. That's interesting. I wonder what happens if" and before you know it hours have passed.
But players who burn out on games return right back to citing minor polish issues. 1000 hours in and now you're suddenly complaining about the controls being unresponsive and leaving a negative review on Steam.
When the computer displays messages, it does something similar to set expectations by involving the student in conversation. The student, being human, reacts to being spoken to by saying something back, out loud. Once the first person normalizes that response the whole room lights up.
For the same reason that the livestreamer's first complaints aren't really an issue, the students aren't *actually* in need of help - that's a displacement of their reaction into words that resemble their feelings. And error messages with misleading qualities compound this. The industrial standard of tooling is guided around having the compiler act as a tiny bureaucrat that rubber-stamps things and makes you fill out forms, but it's a bureaucrat with the savvy of cost-optimized customer support - terse, formulaic, mostly addressing the surface issues.
There's a type of programmer that, when they get errors and warnings, goes looking for the settings to turn them off. I think that is a related thing - the compiler frustrates them on a base emotive level. This type of programmer is probably very satisfied with LLM coding because of the sycophancy.
On your end, you know that the student copying off a lecture slide probably has it 95% right, but they need models preparing them to react to these messages, otherwise they spiral out and quit.