I get what he is trying to get at but he's gone the other extreme.

There are value to tests that are implementation specific. How else will you test a particular version rigorously? Of course not all tests stay correct unchanged in the face of evolving code. You write more tests to ensure the new behavior is tested, which would then need to be adapted if the implementation changes again. This is kind of why QA is a separate department usually.

Not writing tests that won't stand the test of time isn't the answer. And it sure as hell won't fix the "people" problem of dev's finding ways to do minimal work to secure their bonus/salary and nothing more.

He should try incentivizing and rewarding to keep people motivated, not writing unbreakable magic tests that would make such slackers more obvious and easier to spot.

I honestly only see this guy trying to augment his shitty managerial skills with what he knows about dealing with badly behaving programs and not much more on that article.