All these companies use AIs for writing these prompts.

But AI aren't actually very good at writing prompts imo. Like they are superficially good in that they seem to produce lots of vaguely accurate and specific text. And you would hope the specificity would mean it's good.

But they sort of don't capture intent very well. Nor do they seem to understand the failure modes of AI. The "-- describe only what the code change does" is a good example. This is specifc but it also distinctly seems like someone who doesn't actually understand what makes AI writing obvious.

If you compare that vs human written prose about what makes AI writing feel AI you would see the difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing

The above actually feels like text from someone who has read and understands what makes AI writing AI.

AI is better at writing prompts than most humans. It requires work and lots of developers don’t think getting good at prompting actually matters.

At least half of the complaints I see on HN boil down to the person's prompts suck. Or the expectation that AI can read their mind.

Hey LLM, write me a system prompt that will avoid the common AI 'tells' or other idiosyncrasies that make it obvious that text or code output was generated by an AI/LLM. Use the referenced Wikipedia article as a must-avoid list, but do not consider it exhaustive. Add any derivations or modifications to these rules to catch 'likely' signals as well.

There, sorted!

All the prompts I've ever written with Claude have always worked fine the first time. Only revised if the actual purpose changes, I left something out, etc. But also I tend to only write prompts as part of a larger session, usually near the end, so there's lots of context available to help with the writing.