It is a weird linter, and it can definitely be misused. It saves me hours of work at least a couple times a month, however.

I have valid criticisms of statically typed languages, based around code patterns that are both expressive and efficient that are either difficult or impossible to implement in a statically typed language without “an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.”

Typescript, however, is different. Its type annotation functionality is not the same as a static type system, which means I get to keep all those things I like about dynamically typed languages while still having compile-time validation.

Flip-side, however, is the complete lack of runtime validation in typescript, and the fact that junior developers trip on that a lot. I would call that a real advantage of javascript (if not enough to stop me from using Typescript). Having no check at all is better than being convinced typescript is protecting you when it’s not.

I think the idea is that someone buying a basic book on foraging mushrooms isn’t going to know who the experts are.

They’re going to google it, and they’re going to find AI-generated reviews (with affiliate links!) of AI-generated foraging books.

Now, if said AI is generating foraging books more accurate than humans, that’s fine by me. Until that’s the case, we should be marking AI-generated books in some clear way.