I don't feel like this was a piece by someone who has used LLMs too much. I'm fairly confident this is just LLM writing the majority, possibly tweaked by a hum

I don't feel like this was a piece by someone who has used LLMs too much. I'm fairly confident this is just LLM writing the majority, possibly tweaked by a human. Opening line is a form of, "It's not X, it's Y": ".. isn't thinking. It's I/O". Then the start of the second paragraph is that weird breathless kind of writing: > Reading five files to answer a question about one method. Generating a test file that follows the exact same pattern as the twenty test files next to it. More "It's not X, it's Y": The seat license isn't what hurts, it's the tokens. The softly pressed insistence that AI is worth it, really: "The tooling pays for itself but only if..."