Top
Best
New

Posted by theletterf 13 hours ago

To those who fired or didn't hire tech writers because of AI(passo.uno)
301 points | 215 commentspage 5
vasco 9 hours ago|
With every job replaced by AI the best people will be doing a better job than the AI and it'll be very frustrating to be replaced by people that can't tell the difference.

But most people aren't that great at their jobs.

NitpickLawyer 10 hours ago||
Meh. A bit too touchy feely for my taste, and not much in ways of good arguments. Some of the things touched on in the article are either extreme romanticisations of the craft or rather naive takes (docs are product truth? Really?!?! That hasn't been the case in ages, with docs for multi-billion dollar solutions, written by highly paid grass fed you won't believe they're not humans!)...

The parts about hallucinations and processes are also a bit dated. We're either at, or very close to the point where "agentic" stuff works in a "GAN" kind of way to "produce docs" -> read docs and try to reproduce -> resolve conflicts -> loop back, that will "solve" both hallucinations and processes, at least at the quality of human-written docs. My bet is actually better in some places. Bitter lesson and all that. (at least for 80% of projects, where current human written docs are horrendous. ymmv. artisan projects not included)

What I do agree with is that you'll still want someone to hold accountable. But that's just normal business. This has been the case for integrators / 3rd party providers since forever. Every project requiring 3rd party people still had internal folks that were held accountable when things didn't work out. But, you probably won't need 10 people writing docs. You can hold accountable the few that remain.

PlatoIsADisease 10 hours ago|
I love AI and use it daily, but I still run into hallucinations, even in COT/Thinking. I don't think hallucinations are as bad as people make it out to be. But I've been using AI since GPT3, so I'm hyper aware.
nstart 9 hours ago||
Yea. I think people underestimate this. Yesterday I was writing an obsidian plugin using the latest and most powerful Gemini model and I wanted it to make use of the new keychain in Obsidian to retrieve values for my plugin. Despite reading the docs first upon my request it still used a non existent method (retrieveSecret) to get the individual secret value. When it ran into an error, instead of checking its assumptions it assumed that the method wasnt defined in the interface so it wrote an obsidian.shim.ts file that defined a retrieveSecret interface. The plug-in compiled but obviously failed because no implementation of that method exists. When it understood it was supposed to used getSecret instead it ended up updating the shim instead of getting rid of it entirely. Add that up over 1000s of sessions/changes (like the one cursor has shared on letting the agent run until it generated 3M LOC for a browser) and it's likely that code based will be polluted with tiny papercuts stemming from LLM hallucinations
j45 7 hours ago||
The fired writers should get together start their own publications.

AI can’t generate insights far beyond what it’s trained on.

Their writing will be a different moat.

leosanchez 7 hours ago|
> The fired writers should get together start their own publications.

What if the next version of AI model gets trained on their work ?

stackedinserter 8 hours ago||
> So here’s my request for you: Reconsider

Why should I hire a dedicated writer if I have people with better understanding of the system? Also worth noting that like in any profession the most writers are... mediocre. Especially when you hire someone on contract. I had mostly bad experience with them in past. They happily charge $1000 for a few pages of garbage that is not even LLM-quality. No creativity, just pumping out words.

I can chip in like $20 to pay some "good writer" that "observes, listens and understands" for writing documentation on something and compare it with LLM-made one.

"Write a manual for air travel for someone who never flew. Cover topics like buying a ticket, preparing for travel, getting to airport, doing things in the airport, etc"

Let's compare!

the_af 7 hours ago|
> Why should I hire a dedicated writer if I have people with better understanding of the system?

Many engineers are terrible at documentation, not just because they find it boring or cannot put it into words (that's the part an LLM could actually help with) but because they cannot tell what to document, what is unneeded detail, how best to address the target audience (or what is the profile of the target audience to begin with; something you can tell an LLM but which it cannot find on its own), etc, etc. The Fine Article goes into these nuances; it's the whole point of it.

> "Write a manual for air travel for someone who never flew. Cover topics like buying a ticket, preparing for travel, getting to airport, doing things in the airport, etc"

Air travel is a well-known thing, surely different from your bespoke product.

billy99k 8 hours ago||
Getting emotional about it won't work. Companies only see results. If replacing your job with AI works, your job will be replaced.
MORPHOICES 9 hours ago||
[dead]
friartuck69 8 hours ago||
Answer me how a technical writer thinks that formatting markdown is a clear way of relating information?

Hopefully they used AI to write this.

marstall 8 hours ago|
are you talking about the hashes (##, ###) etc in the subheadings? I think that's an intentional design thing, a bit of a nod to the back row, if you will.
pydanny 9 hours ago||
https://daniel.feldroy.com/
Antibabelic 9 hours ago|
What is this? Your website? How is it relevant to the post?
gjm11 8 hours ago||
There's another HN thread specifically asking people for links to their personal websites. I suspect an accidental typing-in-the-wrong-reply-box issue.
murderfs 10 hours ago||
I don't think I've ever seen documentation from tech writers that was worth reading: if a tech writer can read code and understand it, why are they making half or less of what they would as an engineer? The post complains about AI making things up in subtle ways, but I've seen exactly the same thing happen with tech writers hired to document code: they documented what they thought should happen instead of what actually happened.
DeborahWrites 10 hours ago||
You sound unlucky in your tech writer encounters!

There are plenty of people who can read code who don't work as devs. You could ask the same about testers, ops, sysadmins, technical support, some of the more technical product managers etc. These roles all have value, and there are people who enjoy them.

Worth noting that the blog post isn't just about documenting code. There's a LOT more to tech writing than just that niche. I still remember the guy whose job was writing user manuals for large ship controls, as a particularly interesting example of where the profession can take you.

parados 7 hours ago|||
> they documented what they thought should happen instead of what actually happened.

The other way around. For example the Python C documentation is full of errors and omissions where engineers described what they thought should happen. There is a documentation project that describes what actually happens (look in the index for "Documentation Lacunae"): https://pythonextensionpatterns.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ind...

saagarjha 10 hours ago|||
Not everyone wants to write code.
murderfs 10 hours ago||
Yeah, but almost everyone wants money. You can see this by looking at what projects have the best documentation: they're all things like the man-pages project where the contributors aren't doing it as a job when they could be working a more profitable profession instead.
saagarjha 10 hours ago||
While I do appreciate man pages, I don't think they are something I would consider to be "the best documentation". Many of the authors of them are engineers, by the way.
imtringued 9 hours ago|||
A tech writer isn't a class of person. "Tech writer" is a role or assignment. You can be an engineer working as a tech writer.

Also, the primary task of a tech writer isn't to document code. They're supposed to write tutorials, user guides, how to guides, explanations, manuals, books, etc.

jillesvangurp 7 hours ago|
I'm currently in the middle of restructuring our website. 95% of the work is being done by codex. That includes content writing, design work, implementation work, etc. But it's a lot of work for me because I am critical about things like wording/phrasing and not hallucinating things we don't actually do. That's actually a lot of work. But it's editorial work and not writing work or programming work. But it's doing a pretty great job. Having a static website with a site generator means I can do lots of changes quickly via agentic coding.

My advise to tech writers would be to get really good at directing and orchestrating AI tools to do the heavy lifting of producing documentation. If you are stuck using content management systems or word processors, consider adopting a more code centric workflow. The AI tools can work with those a lot better. And you can't afford to be doing things manually that an AI does faster and better. Your value is making sure the right documentation gets written and produced correctly; correcting things that need correcting/perfecting. It's not in doing everything manually; you need to cherry pick where your skills still add value.

Another bit of insight is that a lot of technical documentation now has AIs as the main consumer. A friend of mine who runs a small SAAS service has been complaining that nobody actually reads his documentation (which is pretty decent) and instead relies on LLMs to do that for them. The more documentation you have, the less people will read all of it. Or any of it.

But you still need documentation. It's easier than ever to produce it. The quality standards for that documentation are high and increasing. There are very few excuses for not having great documentation.