> CI/CD?

That is less useful when the changes are editing the tests but we don't know if a human has validated the assertions.

> My non-techie friends send me screenshots of ChatGPT. I guess that’s a modern micro aggression?

I think the concern I have is explicitly not the sending the chat logs. I think it's this flow:

1. Ask a question

2. Get an answer from a team member.

3. I don't like the answer and instead of discussing I am going to go to Claude and ask the same question.

4. Copy/paste the answer into chat without seeing if it includes novel information.

In one case the engineer was asking which model to select in the agent framework we are using. I gave an answer and provided a list of reasons. They did not like this answer and asked Claude which gave the same answer.

The answer was something inherently obvious and that anyone should be able to derive from first principals.

> That is less useful when the changes are editing the tests but we don't know if a human has validated the assertions.

Yep. I've witnessed this first hand many times. AI-enthusiastic coworker submits a PR. The tests don't pass. "Can you fix the tests? Then I'll review."

Next commit has `assert status == 200` changed to `assert status == 500` all over the place, among other things. Yes, technically, the tests now pass, but...

Last summer, this went on with one guy for weeks. Thousands and thousands of lines of slop. Eventually he was moved off the project and we threw away all his changes.