If you've ever been tasked with coming up to speed on a system mostly documented with AI writing, you'll quickly realise how hard it is to trust anything you are reading. Even if the Claude documentation is 100% accurate, you'll never shake the worry that some crucial fact you founded your understanding on was wrong. It's a fast recipe for psychosis.

That's without even mentioning that AI writing can often state the what but not the why. That human perspective is usually the most valuable knowledge to get across in writing.

▲

JojoFatsani 3 hours ago | parent [-]

There’s no reason to trust a human any more than an LLM for this. Humans are not 100% accurate and very capable of making crucial factual errors in documentation. Ask me how I know.

	▲	creata 38 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's probably possible to prompt an LLM into writing well, but most LLM writing that I've seen is poorly structured (e.g., the paragraphs in this post feel like strings of punchy marketing phrases), and the LLMs are too good at sounding like they're saying a lot while saying very little. Plus, if a human puts the effort into writing something, that signals to me that it's worth something, because human time is much more scarce than LLM time.
	▲	foltik 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		There’s a _very_ good reason. Humans have a much richer mental mental model of the codebase, design decisions, external factors, etc. Of course Humans can make errors when translating that to English. But if you’ve read any amount of Claudish it should be obvious that interpolating the code to documentation with an LLM typically produces a significantly worse result in almost every way. Except for superficially “sounding” correct.
	▲	ashkankiani an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I don't want to read software written by misanthropes. If you've given up on working with other people, then what is the point exactly?