At Google the nickname for these kinds of tests was 'change detector tests'.

Yeah, the OP's counterargument is that you can filter down what goes into the test output. But at that point it seems not too different qualitatively from the traditional bottom-up approach where you just write assertions yourself, except that the framework does the job of populating the assertions' expected values.

If you are saying this approach would tend to produce a lot of change-detector tests, then that is an issue, but I think scotty79 is making a different point: this approach would seem to make it easy to overlook any regressions that the latest change has created.

Yes, and that's exactly the issue with change detector tests.