I'm really open to feedback. I checked your past comments and you posted:

> AI is good at coding if there's an oracle. If the system is ancient, unreadable, untestable, that's exactly the opposite. It won't get the exact set of corner cases.

I sort of mention this in the article, so I'm sure we're somewhat aligned on the core. How would you have worded things?

First of all I want to say it is not your fault, and also your article is clearly partly human, despite what Pangram says.

The thing that I like the least is the headings and the way LLMs always try to put a punchy line. "Correctness time splits in two" says nothing if you don't know what it splits in. Maybe "making it correct vs. describing what's correct"?

Another trope is short sentences: "Good engineers used to say this before LLMs, and now nobody can argue about the sunken cost of having written that code." instead of the longer and redundant "Good engineers said this before LLMs. It was true then. It is enforceable now in a way it was not, because nobody can argue that writing more code was the hard part".

Another clearly AI paragraph is "Plumbing time collapsed. Scaffolding a service, generating tests, translating between frameworks, writing the first draft of a migration: all of this is fast now, and any timeline built on those costs deserves compression." Instead: "The time to bring up a proof of concept or refactor old code has compressed, and you should take that into account when planning your timeline".

There are videos on YouTube about AI style, you just need to learn them and undo them when they're the most blatant.