There is a difference. It matters more than you think.

Somewhere in your codebase right now, there is code an AI agent wrote. Maybe you reviewed it carefully. Maybe you skimmed it. Maybe you approved the pull request because the tests were green and you had three other things open.

This is not a problem to be solved by reading faster. It is a problem to be solved differently.

The question worth asking is not “did I read this code?” The question is: “do I have sufficient evidence that this code is correct?” Reading is one way to gather that evidence. It is not the only way, and for AI-generated code at any meaningful scale, it cannot be the primary one.

There was a man called Xosé who worked in a textile factory outside A Corunha for thirty-one years. He started at seventeen, sweeping floors, and by the time the factory closed he was operating a loom that could produce in one hour what his grandmother would have taken a week to weave by hand.

He was not bitter about the loom. This is important to understand. He was not one of those men who shook his fist at machines. The loom was a good machine. It did its work honestly. What Xosé was bitter about—and he would tell you this over umha cunca, slowly, the way you explain something to a child who is clever but hasn’t yet been hurt—was that when the factory closed, nobody seemed to have a plan for what thirty-one years of floor-sweeping and loom-operating were supposed to become.

The polvaria works because the woman behind the bar is the owner.

This is important. Not in a sentimental way, not in a “support small business” way, but in the structural way that determines whether the polvo is good or not. She decides the menu. She knows the regulars. She pours the ribeiro the way it should be poured, which is to say generously, into ceramic cups that don’t match, without asking if you’d prefer something else. There is nothing else. This is the polvaria.

Someone showed me a letter the other day.

We were in the polvaria — the same one, the one without photos on the door, the one where the polvo is good and the ribeiro costs four euros and the chalkboard menu hasn’t changed since 2011. A friend pulled out his phone and said, “Read this.” The way people do when they’ve found something that either confirms their worst fear or their best hope and they can’t tell which.

Every summer, three million people walk into Santiago de Compostela and photograph the cathedral. They stand in the Praça do Obradoiro with their phones raised, capturing the same façade from the same angle that fourteen million people captured the year before. They post it. They tag it. They feel they’ve been somewhere.

Then they eat in a restaurant with a menu in four languages and a photo of paella on the door, which is already suspicious because paella is Valencian and this is Galicia, and they pay eighteen euros for something that a local would describe, if pressed, as “technically food.”