I spent a bit of time reviewing and cleaning up the mess of someone who had taken text that I'd carefully written, put it through an AI to make it more "impactful", and revising it to remove the confusions and things I hadn't said. The text the AI wrote was certainly impactful, but it was also exaggerated and wrong in several places.

So did AI add value here? It seems to me that it wasted a bunch of my time.

▲

crinkly 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is the paradox. It's often harder correcting someone else's work than it is doing it in the first place. So you end up having spent more effort.

	▲	PapstJL4U 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's although a lot less enjoyable in for many. I think the fun stories are all about "look what I have build" and not "look at my amazing code review". For Boilerplate code we need an AI that is less creative and more secure and predictable. I have fun creative a system design with the right tables and I have implementing logic and interaction design. I don't have the biggest fun writing down dtos and entities. I would need an AI, that can scan an image and just build me the right lego bricks. We are just getting back to an machine that can do UML from less precise sources.

▲

matwood 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This sounds more like bad editing regardless if they used an LLM or not.

For me, I can now skip the step of handing something to marketing/editor who wants to make it more impactful because I use AI up front do that - including making sure it's still correct and says what I want it to say.