This is a refreshingly pragmatic take on AI adoption. The "step behind the bleeding edge" philosophy resonates deeply - especially the security concerns around the AI gold rush mentality. The emphasis on maintaining ownership of your work while leveraging AI for toil rather than thought is spot on. Too many teams are either completely avoiding AI or blindly adopting every new tool without considering the broader implications.

> If you ask AI to write a document for you, you might get 80% of the deep quality you’d get if you wrote it yourself for 5% of the effort. But, now you’ve also only done 5% of the thinking.

This, but also for code. I just don't trust new code, especially generated code; I need time to sit with it. I can't make the "if it passes all the tests" crowd understand and I don't even want to. There are things you think of to worry about and test for as you spend time with a system. If I'm going to ship it and support it, it will take as long as it will take.

I'm very happy with the chat interface thanks.

* The interface is near identical across bots

* I can switch bots whenever I like. No integration points and vendor lock-in.

* It's the same risk as any big-tech website.

* I really don't need more tooling in my life.

> “Their (ie the document’s) value stems from the discipline and the thinking the writer is forced to impose upon himself as [she] identifies and deals with trouble spots”.

Real quote

> "Hence their value stems from the discipline and the thinking the writer is forced to impose upon himself as he identifies and deals with trouble spots in his presentation."

I mean seriously?