There's creativity and there's the creative process. I like to dictate documentation in long form monologue, and then give instructions how to structure it. Then I give it a final pass with manual adjustments and the end-result is exactly how it would have looked if I had written it from scratch but without the bsywork.

Don't be stupid enough to let machines do your own thinking, treat them as a dishwasher.

▲

rsynnott 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Writing docs is, at best, only marginally creative work.

Though honestly, still probably skip the LLM if you’ve any pride in your work; LLM-‘assisted’ docs are generally worse than those written by people.

▲

DarkNova6 6 hours ago | parent [-]

So what are journalistic texts if not docs? At this point, an LLM is just another evolution from the typewriter.

You are still responsible for your work. What is important are the semantics and statements of the text. Less so how the exact arrangement of letters came to be.

▲

rsynnott 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Journalists should not be using LLMs. Most proper papers ban them from using LLMs to write their stuff, for instance see https://www.rte.ie/news/2026/0319/1564281-mediahuis-peter-va...

	▲	DarkNova6 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You are not wrong, but here's the catch: "Even I - with all my years of experience and knowledge - fell into the trap of hallucinations. I summarised reports using AI tools and worked from those summaries, trusting they were accurate. He used an LLM to perform research instead of using it as a mere writing tool. I think large language models are great at formatting text, formatting, structuring and giving a stylecheck. But the last pass and review must always be a human. Everything posted by an LLM under your name is still under your name and you are liable for every single word. It's about the outcome and everybody who uses it is responsible for it.