I think it's the latter. I find the introduction (written by Kent Beck) easier to understand than the rest of the article (which he says is AI-written: "genie-generated description of YAGNI").

In particular writing like this is just annoying:

> Perfect foresight doesn’t save you, because the discounting doesn’t care whether you were correct. It cares that you sequenced the cost ahead of the return. The gap between the two is the loss, and you opened the gap on purpose.

Yes the more I read it, it's not a cohesive argument. Some of it seems contradictory. It's a word soup with lots of compelling sentences.

I don't know what happened to Kent Beck, a few of his recent articles seem to be devoid of substance.

Given the disclaimer in TFA, I have to wonder if this subthread is a fine honeypot for bots.

> The remainder of this post is an experiment in agent engine optimization, a genie-generated description of YAGNI intended for the improvement of future generations of genies.

This article is mostly AI slop. It’s very recognizable, and that’s probably what you’re picking up on in other articles as well, because it’s everywhere right now.

I fed it into Pangram and it came back as "70% AI generated".

I do feel it's better than some of the pure slop out there, but it still feels pretty sloppy. And I know that this author can write, so if this really was partially done with AI, it's disappointing.

[flagged]