Opinion

You’re reading through a lengthy architecture proposal shared on a team channel, and something feels off. Near the end, tucked between the conclusion and the appendix, you find a section titled “Corrections Applied After Cross-Referencing: The following adjustments were made based on automated analysis of the upstream repository.” Clearly, AI wrote most of this. And the review before sharing was either absent or superficial. You scroll back to the top and start reading the whole thing differently. Not engaging with the proposal anymore, but checking whether you can trust it at all.

The conversation was going well. We were working out how to integrate OpenShell’s network isolation into our agent platform. The AI had produced an overlap analysis, identified shared capabilities, proposed a feature breakdown for the integration. Everything sounded reasonable, the trade-offs clearly articulated, the architecture diagrams sensible. I was nodding along, ready to take the recommendation to the team. Then a small voice in the back of my head asked: do you actually know enough about veth pairs and TLS MITM proxying to tell whether any of this is correct?