I just published a two-part series on the services-as-software thesis that I genuinely could not have produced as quickly or as sharply without an AI sparring partner. But the genre is bad because it gets the causal arrow backwards. The lesson it teaches is "AI did the thinking and made the output good." That's wrong on the facts. The actual lesson is "AI produced structured first drafts that were directionally right and substantively wrong. The output was good because I pushed back until I was comfortable that the facts supported the analysis."