Live data from Hacker News

To those who fired or didn't hire tech writers because of AI

passo.uno

41–50 of 278 posts

Re: To those who fired or didn't hire tech writers because of AI

#41
It’s not so much that AI is replacing “tech writers”; with all due respect to the individuals in those roles, it was never a good title to identify as.

Technical writing is part of the job of software engineering. Just like “tester” or “DBA”, it was always going to go the way of the dodo.

If you’re a technical writer, now’s the time to reinvent yourself.

Re: To those who fired or didn't hire tech writers because of AI

#42
First, we've fallen into a nomenclature trap, as so-called "AI" has nothing to do with "intelligence." Even its creators admit this, hence the name "AGI," since the appropriate acronym has already been used.

But, when we use "AI" acronym, our brains still recognize "intelligence" attribute and tend to perceive LLMs as more powerful than they actually are.

Current models are like trained parrots that can draw colored blocks and insert them into the appropriate slots. Sure, much faster and with incomparably more data. But they're still parrots.

This story and the discussions remind me of reports and articles about the first computers. People were so impressed by the speed of their mathematical calculations that they called them "electronic brains" and considered, even feared, "robot intelligence."

Now we're so impressed by the speed of pattern matching that we called them "artificial intelligence," and we're back to where we are.

Re: To those who fired or didn't hire tech writers because of AI

#43
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that so many things have been monopolized or oligopolized by equally-mediocre actors so that quality ultimately no longer matters because it's not like people have any options. You mention you've done work for public transit - well, if public transit documentation suddenly starts being terrible, will it lead to an immediate, noticeable drop in revenue? Doubt it. Firing the technical writer however has…

You are right. We are seeing a transition from the user as a customer to the user as a resource. It's almost like a cartel of shitty treatment. I don't work for the public transit company; I introduce immigrants to Berlin's public transit. To answer to the broader question, good documentation is one of the many little things that affect how you feel about a company. The BVG clearly cares about that, because their mar…

“It's almost like a cartel of shitty treatment.”

Thank you. I love it when someone poetically captures a feeling I’ve been having so succinctly.

Re: To those who fired or didn't hire tech writers because of AI

#44
post #23

The best tech writers I have worked with don’t merely document the product. They act as stand-ins for actual users and will flag all sorts of usability problems. They are invaluable. The best also know how to start with almost no engineering docs and to extract what they need from 1-1 sit down interviews with engineering SMEs. I don’t see AI doing either of those things well.

> I don’t see AI doing either of those things well. I think I agree, at least in the current state of AI, but can't quite put my finger on what exactly it's missing. I did have some limited success with getting Claude Code to go through tutorials (actually implementing each step as they go), and then having it iterate on the tutorial, but it's definitely not at the level of a human tech writer. Would you be willing t…

I don’t know that it can be well-defined. It might be asking something akin to “What makes something human?” For usability, one needs a sense of what defines “user pain” and what defines “reasonableness.” No product is perfect. They all have usability problems at some level. The best usability experts, and tech writers who do this well, have an intuition for user priorities and an ability to identify and differentiate large usability problems from small ones.

Re: To those who fired or didn't hire tech writers because of AI

#45
post #26

I write documentation for a living. Although my output is writing, my job is observing, listening and understanding. I can only write well because I have an intimate understanding of my readers' problems, anxieties and confusion. This decides what I write about, and how to write about it. This sort of curation can only come from a thinking, feeling human being. I revise my local public transit guide every time I expe…

I don't write for a living, but I do consider communication / communicating a hobby of sorts. My observations - that perhaps you can confirm or refute - are:

- Most people don't communicate as thoroughly and complete - written and verbal - as they think they do. Very often there is what I call "assumptive communication". That is, sender's ambiguity that's resolved by the receiver making assumptions about what was REALLY meant. Often, filling in the blanks is easy to do - as it's done all the time - but not always. The resolution doesn't change the fact there was ambiguity at the root.

Next time you're communicating, listen carefully. Make note of how often the other person sends something that could be interpreted differently, how often you assume by using the default of "what they likely meant was..."

- That said, AI might not replace people like you. Or me? But it's an improvement for the majority of people. AI isn't perfect, hardly. But most people don't have the skills a/o willingness to communicate at a level AI can simulate. Improved communication is not easy. People generally want ease and comfort. AI is their answer. They believe you are replaceable because it replaces them and they assume they're good communicators. Classic Dunning-Kruger.

p.s. One of my fave comms' heuristics is from Frank Luntz*:

"It's not what you say, it's what they hear." (One of the keys to improved comms is to embrace that clarify and completeness is the sole responsibility of the sender, not the receiver. Some people don't want to hear that, and be accountable, especially then assumption communication is a viable shortcut.

* Note: I'm not a fan of his politics, and perhaps he's not The Source of this heuristic, but read it first in his "Words That Work". The first chapter of "WTW" is evergreen comms gold.

Re: To those who fired or didn't hire tech writers because of AI

#47

It’s not so much that AI is replacing “tech writers”; with all due respect to the individuals in those roles, it was never a good title to identify as. Technical writing is part of the job of software engineering. Just like “tester” or “DBA”, it was always going to go the way of the dodo. If you’re a technical writer, now’s the time to reinvent yourself.

The specialisations will always exist. A good software engineer can't replace a good tester, DBA, or writer. There are specific extra skills necessary for those roles. We may not need those full skills in every environment (most companies will be just fine without a DBA), but they sure are not going away globally.

You're going to get some text out of a typical engineer, but the writing quality, flow, and fit for the given purpose is not going to come close to someone who does it every day.

Re: To those who fired or didn't hire tech writers because of AI

#48
post #26

I write documentation for a living. Although my output is writing, my job is observing, listening and understanding. I can only write well because I have an intimate understanding of my readers' problems, anxieties and confusion. This decides what I write about, and how to write about it. This sort of curation can only come from a thinking, feeling human being. I revise my local public transit guide every time I expe…

Thanks so much for this!

Nicely written (which, I guess, is sort of the point).

Re: To those who fired or didn't hire tech writers because of AI

#49

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…

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.

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

Re: To those who fired or didn't hire tech writers because of AI

#50
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. Could the same be said for engineers?

That assumes your backlog is finite. Is the tech writers backlog also seemingly infinite like every tech backlog I've ever seen?

The tech writer backlog is probably worse, because writing good documentation requires extensive experience with the software you're writing documentation about and there are four types of documentation you need to produce.
Post reply on HN