The counter example, yes.

"Some subset of this collection is valid, therefore they all are" is not a valid inference. It's more like what we call "proof by intimidation".

> This is not a reasonable take in 2026.

I think it is. Why is it that the only people in any field I'm aware of that think the AI output in their field is high quality are either the ones that are carefully crafting the output themselves or were producing/consuming slop themselves before all this started? (Outsiders pretty uniformly like the output, which is why I drew the parallel to Gell-Mann amnesia.)