I came here to say something like "This is a joke, right?" Not to be snarky, but because I just assume everyone throws the Inevitable Looming Tool at docs, especially where resource is scarce.. but this point has already come up and I suppose there is some truth in the idea that folks detect AI and are often put off by it - but while I think that's true in creative/blog pieces, is it really true in formal docs? For me that is in the same column as cancer cures, gene comprehension, room temperature fusion wrangling etc. - the 'lets-get-AI-onto-it-pronto' column...

Anyway, my vapid observations aside, I have a couple of related questions:

- I too would be willing, even keen, to contribute to good documentation of FOSS projects that need it and that I am interested in - a huge barrier to me is that a person needs sufficient understanding to really contribute, don't they? To the point that you pretty much need to get into the code quite deeply or else endlessly pester committers to explain how it works? OK, I am generalising, but it seems valid in the main. A while ago, I observed on a relevant list that the libvirt documentation of how to take qemu snapshots was amazingly fragmented, inconsistent and out of date and this led to comments that I should step up and produce some PRs - but my whole point was that this sh1t is hard to understand without very good docs! I would barely know where to start and I would be very hesitant about making definitive statements...

- As for improving doc structure - and this is a serious consideration as soon as you sit down to think about this stuff - I came across and adopted the https://diataxis.fr/ framework a few years ago.. I have to say the uptake among my co-workers has been dismal. Can anyone suggest doc frameworks or approaches that are more motivating, have less friction, whatever?