TDD fizzled because not enough emphasis was put on writing high level tests which matched user stories and too much emphasis was put on it as a tool of design.

No, TDD failed because it assumed you could design a perfect systems before implementation.

It’s a totally waste of time to do TDD to only find out you made a bad design choice or discovered a conflicting problem.

What makes you think TDD assumes that? It sounds like the complete opposite of what TDD is about.

This is precisely the problem I alluded to which is solved by writing higher level tests with TDD that make fewer assumptions about your design.

TDD ought to let you make a bad design decision and then refactoring it while keeping the test as is.

Roughly how many test on average would you write before beginning implementation?

“TDD failed because it assumed you could design a perfect systems before implementation”

TDD states the opposite.

TDD is very hard to do right and takes a lot of discipline. If i hadn’t worked for a company that did 100% XP, i would not have either believed it could be so effective. (Best Enterprise software i’ve ever seen and written)

In a way, it is funny. You can practise XP with your AI as pair.

"Extreme programming" methodology said you should not do TDD if you don't already know how to implement the code. In that case you should instead experiment until you know, and then throw away the experiments and write the code test-first.

Maybe it should be done that way with AI: experiment with AI if you need to, then write a plan with AI, then let the AI do the implementation.