SCRIPT CHECK · 60 SECONDS
Five quick questions show how often it appears, how believable it feels, and what it makes you avoid. You’ll get one private next step.
This is not a diagnosis and there is no pass or fail. It measures the current frequency, credibility, and behavioral cost of “An hour of my work, generated in seconds”, including the private rule underneath it: If a machine can produce the same output faster, the time I spent must have been wasted — as though speed alone decides whether work counted.
QUIET
“An hour of my work, generated in seconds” appears, but it rarely gets the final say. Keep this line available for higher-pressure moments: “Twenty seconds and one hour aren't measuring the same task — one of them skipped the part where I decide if it's right.”
PRESENT
“An hour of my work, generated in seconds” wins some small decisions before you catch it. Your useful interruption is: “The stopwatch only counts typing. It doesn't count the minutes I'd have spent finding out the fast answer was wrong.”
ACTIVE
“An hour of my work, generated in seconds” is shaping action often enough to deserve a deliberate counterexample. Start privately and concretely: Time yourself reviewing your last AI-assisted output for errors, then compare that number honestly to the twenty seconds it took to generate.
DOMINANT
Right now, “An hour of my work, generated in seconds” is steering many of the moments you measured. That is a pattern reading, not a diagnosis or character verdict. Begin with one reversible receipt: Time yourself reviewing your last AI-assisted output for errors, then compare that number honestly to the twenty seconds it took to generate.