> When you know the writer personally, it becomes harder to see the text from the author’s perspective if you know it’s not her style.
I think this is why I absolutely hate reading AI-generated PR descriptions, Readmes or wiki entries at work. I work with these people every day, we talk to each other in meetings, but then I read perfectly formatted Slop in the freshly opened PR that has your name and picture attached to it, yet it's almost impossible for me to care about it because (subconsciously or not) i can't bring myself to see it as yours. Same or even worse for reviews.
We agreed not to use AI-based communication internally, including PR descriptions. I’d rather not have a description at all than an AI-based one.
I don’t understand how people aren’t embarrassed putting those kind of PRs online tbh.
It undermines an assumption that until recently was nearly impossible to violate: that the author spent time and effort to produce the writing you are spending time and effort to read.
For me long texts (internal docs) were definitely the hardest part. However, my colleagues were nice and all agreed to limit AI usage for writing docs that are for other people to read (and not for agents).
Same. I hate AI writing. AI code is okay. I can deal with that. But I want people to be able to explain things themselves. It's especially bad when some folks use a prompt to generate an even larger prompt, then pretend they "wrote a spec." Meanwhile, the spec is virtually incomprehensible gibberish about gaps, evidence, and load bearing dependencies.
Some say "give me the prompt" and I will do it myself. That would save time if we just shared prompts + model used.
AI assisted writing is so popular despite being inferior, because writing well is inherently hard. Good writing requires research, organization, style/grammar and other aspects like "turn of phrase", and all have to work together. Sit down to write something and it can feel overwhelming looking at the blank page and not knowing what to do.