> I can't see the code before, I can't see the code after. I can't verify they do the same thing.

The ultimate bad faith interpretation. "Unless I can verify the results that contradict my worldview, I don't acknowledge them."

> https://www.mikekasberg.com/blog/2026/08/19/hacking-with-cla...

"I haven't done this, so this doesn't prove it."

> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyq011414eo

"I haven't seen the paper trail, so this doesn't prove it."

on and on...

How is it bad faith to question corporate marketing blog posts? That's not bad faith, that's table stakes for critical thinking.

We absolutely should be skeptical when an AI company makes big claims. The fact that the company the AI company is talking about also claims the same thing doesn't change that. OpenAI is getting awareness and marketing out of this, and I'm sure Asana is getting something out of it too.

And I'm not even saying OpenAI or Asana are necessarily lying. Asana might not find out for months or years that some tests had been rewritten poorly, and don't sufficiently test the thing they were supposed to test anymore. For example. If they truly had 5 years of work, then I find it hard to believe that in two weeks of the LLM churning, they had the time to review all the new tests. They spot-checked, at best.

Maybe everything is great. Maybe the LLM did a wonderful job, and this was awesome for Asana. But we have no idea, and we're unlikely to ever find out. Unless, of course, it's in Asana's interest from a marketing perspective to tell us.

(Not sure what the URLs you posted in your comment are supposed to prove. They're unrelated to the issue at hand.)

The comment I was replying to said

> But you _can_ verify if you had bothered

I think pointing out I can't is indeed fair.