I think a lot of that is people who were always very insecure because they’re mediocre engineers. Previously asking questions or not understanding something was a bit painful but now you can hear “you’re absolutely right!” and make progress all day every day. Until you need to interact with actual humans and that’s why you try to minimise it, hiding behind ai generated content.

He's basically asking other people to do his job for him, because he knows that the AI doesn't truly do it well enough.

I would say to him that if he wants me to do his job, he needs to pay me his salary.

> Au psychosis is getting seriously outrageous at this point

So... back to a currency backed by gold?

On the contrary, I kind of love this as form of malicious compliance. I'd wager money that the PO/BAs have been demanding "comprehensive documentation" for a very long time, and now they are getting what they've asked for good and hard.

When some people call this "Verification Debt" or something similar, that is setting the Overton Window upon this phenomena adversely upon the verifiers. I call it an application of Brandolini's Law:

"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.""

Until you put in at least the same amount of energy required to verify the AI output as you are asking others to put in to verify it, the AI output you are wielding must be considered bullshit. Really, it should be based upon the verification requestor's historical trust score and how many human verifiers are looped in. A Verification Tax, so to speak:

The energy the creator must spend (Ec) is determined by a function of the number of reviewers requested (N) and the historical trust score of that creator's AI outputs (T).

Ec = N * (1 - T)

>Thankfully I'm a dev and thus aren't in the blast radius of that genius idea

yes you are