I've long considered writing to be the "last step in thinking". I can't tell you how many times an idea, that was crystal clear in my mind, fell apart the moment I started writing and I realize there were major contradictions I needed to resolve. Likewise I also have numerous times where writing about something loosely and casually revealed to me something that fundamentally changed how I viewed a topic and really consolidated my thinking.

However, there is a lot of writing that is basically just an old school from of context engineering. While I would love to think that a PRD is a place to think through ideas, I think many of us have encountered situations, pre-AI, where PRDs were basically context dumps without any real planning or thought.

For these cases, I think we should just drop the premise altogether that you're writing. If you need to write a proposal for something as a matter of ritual, give it AI. If you're documenting a feature to remember context only (and not really explain the larger abstract principles driving it), it's better created as context for an LLM to consume.

Not long ago my engineering team was trying to enforce writing release notes so people could be aware of breaking changes, then people groaned at the idea of having to read this. The obvious best solution is to have your agent write release notes for your agent in the future to have context. No more tedious writing or reading, but also no missing context.

I think it's going to be awhile before the full impact of AI really works it's way through how we work. In the mean time we'll continue to have AI written content fed back into AI and then sent back to someone else (when this could all be a more optimized, closed loop).

Im in a slight disagreement with our CTO about the value of writing acceptance criteria yourself. When I write my own acceptance criteria its a useful tool forcing me to think through how the system ought to work. Definitely in agreement that writing is an important tool for clarifying thinking, not just generating context.

>I've long considered writing to be the "last step in thinking". I can't tell you how many times an idea, that was crystal clear in my mind, fell apart the moment I started writing and I realize there were major contradictions I needed to resolve. Likewise I also have numerous times where writing about something loosely and casually revealed to me something that fundamentally changed how I viewed a topic and really consolidated my thinking.

I read somewhere that Thinking, Writing and Speaking engage different parts of your brain. Whatever the mechanism, I often resolve issues midway while writing a report on them.

If you drop the premise of writing, drop the premise that you need something well written. Just give me the same information you would have given the LLM.

nicely distilled.

however the education system has done a disservice of how critical thinking actually happens.

when you write - then try edit your thoughts (written material). the editing part helps you clarify things, bring truth to power ie. whether you're bullshitting yourself and want to continue or choose another path.

the other part - in a world of answers - critical thinking is a result of asking better questions.

writing helps one to ask better questions.

preferably if you write in a dialogue style.

> writing about something loosely and casually revealed to me something that fundamentally changed how I viewed a topic and really consolidated my thinking

You see the same thing in teaching, perhaps even more because of the interactive element. But the dynamic in any case is the same. Ideas exist as a kind of continuous structure in our minds. When you try to distill that into something discrete you're forced to confront lingering incoherence or gaps.

For your context, I'm an AI hater, so understand my assumptions as such.

> The obvious best solution is to have your agent write release notes for your agent in the future to have context. No more tedious writing or reading, but also no missing context.

Why is more AI the "obvious" best solution here? If nobody wants to read your release notes, then why write them? And if they're going to slim them down with their AI anyway, then why not leave them terse?

It sounds like you're just handwaving at a problem and saying "that's where the AI would go" when really that problem is much better solved without AI if you put a little more thought into it.

> agent write release notes for your agent in the future...

I have been going back to verbose, expansive inline comments. If you put the "history" inline it is context, if you stuff it off in some other system it's an artifact. I cant tell you how many times I have worked in an old codebase, that references a "bug number" in a long dead tracking system.

> For these cases, I think we should just drop the premise altogether that you're writing.

Sure.

> If you need to write a proposal for something as a matter of ritual, give it AI. If you're documenting a feature to remember context only (and not really explain the larger abstract principles driving it), it's better created as context for an LLM to consume.

No, no, no. You don't need to take that step. Whatever bullet-point list you're feeding in as the prompt is the relevant artifact you should be producing and adding to the bug, or sharing as an e-mail, or whatever.