LLMs are pretty bad at compressing ideas down to the level a smart human can. I think this is quite important for good documentation. Essentially the AI wont do a good job of highlighting the really important and essential details unless you go in and edit the writing by hand afterwards using your human intuition. I am not saying to not use LLMs to write docs, but I would definitely edit to expose the really important details as early as possible in the docs and leave the bulk boring stuff the LLM writes for later.
Yeah, I find it... not incomprehensible, but perhaps deeply misguided the way many people are using LLMs mostly to bulk things up.
1. They generate a lot of fluff that people are accustomed to thinking of as a "sign of work" or "sign of intelligence", but now that counterfeits are easy they are not (should not be) valuable anymore.
2. That fluff (and grammatical annoyances) make readers zone out instead of getting what you want them to get from the document.
3. Much of the document is often an extrapolation from a much smaller set of data like source-code or a spreadsheet or the prompt-stuff. If you really believe the tech will get better, then you should be preserving those higher-truth artifacts instead, and use them to generate an improved extrapolation as-needed.
For sure. But I can definitely produce something good enough to get the job done in a much shorter time by bootstrapping myself from an LLM output and editing from there. (I do edit. Raw LLM output is such a drag to read. Too low signal.)