Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Karen Guest's avatar

What stood out to me is that the AI wasn't really the story here.

The planning was.

The quality of the final system depended on the quality of the thinking that happened before a single line of code was generated. It feels like another reminder that AI often amplifies human clarity more than it replaces it.

Noah Hirshon's avatar

The part AI quietly changes here is the division of labor: it’s genuinely good at generating candidate features, and genuinely bad at noticing when one of them leaks the target. So the human job moves from inventing features to auditing them: is this real signal, or is it the answer smuggled in through a side door? Generation got cheap. Judgment about leakage did not.

No posts

Ready for more?