acmerfight

Agreed. This is pure architectural thinking: you hold the ground truth, enforce the strict IAM boundaries, and outsource the mud-playing to the LLM. Mindless 'vibe coding' without this structural discipline is just tittytainment. The job is contract validation now, not typing.

Guilty as charged. As a non-native speaker, I used an LLM to compile my original thoughts into fluent English.

But notice the irony: I used AI exactly as I advocate. It handled the horizontal spread (syntax), while I rigorously enforced the vertical depth (the architectural logic). The 'taste' is entirely mine.

Thank you to Arainach and cableshaft for engaging with the actual substance. Dismissing a core argument because you pattern-matched an 'em-dash' is exactly the shallow thinking this post warns about.

This is a phenomenal example of exactly what I am advocating.

Notice you didn't ask the AI to 'just design a stereo pedal for me.' You interrogated it, reasoned about netlists, and forced the concepts into your brain through intense friction. That is pure deep work.

Ironically, what you described is exactly using AI to help with deep work. You do the heavy lifting (reading), and use AI strictly for stateless verification and testing your mental model. That is the ideal synergy.

Spot on. The ultimate bottleneck is no longer generation; it's verification.

If you don't intrinsically know what 'right' looks like, AI simply helps you build the wrong thing faster. This internal compass is exactly what I meant by 'taste' in the original post.