A lot of the "science" we do is experimenting on bunches of humans, giving them surveys, and treating the result as objective. How many places can we do much better by surveying a specific AI?

It may not be objective, but at least it's consistent, and it reflects something about the default human position.

For example, there are no good ways of measuring the amount of technical debt in a codebase. It's such a fuzzy question that only subjective measures work. But what if we show the AI one file at a time, ask "Rate, 1-10, the comprehensibility, complexity, and malleability of this code," and then average across the codebase. Then we get measure of tech debt, which we can compare over time to measure if it's rising or falling. The AI makes subjective measurements consistent.

This essay gives such a cool new idea, while only scratching the surface.