You think he's not using the tools correctly. I think you aren't doing your job responsibly. You must think he isn't trying very hard. I think you are not trying very hard...

That is the two sides of the argument. It could only be settled, in principle, if both sides were directly observing each other's work in real-time.

But, I've tried that, too. 20 years ago in a debate between dedicated testers and a group of Agilists who believed all testing should be automated. We worked together for a week on a project, and the last day broke down in chaos. Each side interpreted the events and evidence differently. To this day the same debate continues.

Thank you for writing what I feel and experience, so that I don't have to.

Which is kind of like if AI wrote it: except someone is standing behind those words.

I am just finishing a book that took about two years to write. I thought I would be done a year ago. It’s been a slog.

So now I am in the final editing stage, and I am going back over old writing that I don’t remember doing. The material has come together over many many drafts, and parts of it are still not quite consistent with other parts.

But when I am done, it will be mine. And any mistakes will be honest ones that represent the real me. That’s a feeling no one who uses AI assistance will ever have.

I have never and will never use AI to write anything for me.

I wonder what business these big consultants are really in. I can’t believe anyone takes them seriously. So what is it? Money laundering? Kickbacks? Maybe they are a massive excuse manufacturing and blame displacement engine?

Now they use AI to produce even sloppier slop than the slop they slopped non-stop in elder days. The bullshit industry is really getting efficient.

Was this article written by AI? If I argue with it, am I arguing with a real person? Is it written by a corporate shill? Again, if I argue with it, am I talking to a wall?

AI (and before that, corporations) makes skepticism more and more a basic survival skill.

Since this is partly an experience report, it is only as trustworthy as its author, whoever that is. What is this person risking by writing it?

The content seems plausible to me. However, what I’m missing here is:

- how does he test?

- how does he keep himself sharp while his tools are doing so much?

- How does he model the failure modes of this approach, or does he just feel it?

I am not having the same feeling of success as this guy is as I experiment with the same tech. Maybe he’s better than me at using it. Or maybe he’s easily impressed.