>> The most common objection is that writing proposals is “a waste of time” compared to writing code.

> The extra time spent writing is actually spent thinking.

Until someone decides that using ChatGPT to write your RFC is a good idea. Then you get something that looks great, but the person behind the prompt actually understands less.

"Eventually they realized that this was something they were going to have to sort out, and they passed a law decreeing that anyone who had to carry a weapon as part of his normal Silastic work (policemen, security guards, primary school teachers, etc.) had to spend at least forty five minutes every day punching a sack of potatoes in order to work off his or her surplus aggressions. For a while this worked well, until someone thought that it would be much more efficient and less time-consuming if they just shot the potatoes instead. This led to a renewed enthusiasm for shooting all sorts of things..."

- Douglas Adams, "Life, the Universe, and Everything"

(It took an unreasonably long time to find this quote!)

Oh I really worry about that. AI code at least needs to pass unit tests, but there's no way to prove that the ideas in an AI document make sense until you try them and run into issues. Writing is thinking. If you let a robot do it, you aren't.

I’m currently fighting the “don’t use Gemini to write internal documents” war at my company. It’ll be long and hard, but I think I’ll eventually prevail.

Every time someone throws a document written by AI at me, it feels so disrespectful.

And anyone who sees the document is less likely to read it!