If you mean asserting against hardcoded literals, then that is the preferred testing shape in most cases. And for good reason.

If you change production code and a unit test fails, that is useful. Idk why that's silly. If you want to test more complex interaction write a UITest or integration test.

I honestly think we're all living in different worlds. There's probably large differences in capability on a per-language, per-team, per-codebase, per-engineer environment that are producing wildly different perceptions in output quality.

And yes everyone works in different domains. I work at a database vendor myself, so mostly lower-level work.

I’m very happy and successful with LLMs, I just don’t think that these “just move all your tests to your type system!” or “get 100% test coverage” rules are an answer in the long term as we haven’t yet figured out how to do this well.

I personally treat tests as components that need to be well architected, maintained, and add them risks increasing technical debt and needs to be treated as such.

I was describing general strategy, that when applied in concert is more than the sum of its parts.

E.g I mentioned property-based testing, that is another angle at which a test avoids assertions that are too fine grained.

I think it has much more to do with overall architecture and design, and as for now, human oversight.