The article criticizes the practice of forwarding raw AI output in professional communication instead of engaging with it personally. The author highlights how responses in Slack, WhatsApp, and code review threads increasingly consist of verbatim Claude outputs that add no value. Reading AI-generated text is extra effort — it's verbose, often plausible nonsense, and filled with jargon like "NATS control-plane events: stream leader election / R3 quorum re-form during pod churn." The author urges readers to prompt AI but then read, understand, validate, and rewrite the response in their own words. Copy-pasting ticket descriptions into Claude Code without reviewing the code or output turns reviewers into "meat proxies." This approach undermines genuine code review and implementation ownership. The core message is that the effort of processing and rephrasing AI output is where real value is added, and skipping that step defeats the purpose of human judgment in collaborative work.

The piece serves as a reminder that AI tools should augment human thinking, not replace it entirely in professional settings.