upvote
> It seems more likely to me the manager tried to read it and struggled, then generated something of equivalent size or larger.

Either way, it's poor management to interpose oneself between employees. As a manager you should be connecting groups of people to talk to each other directly, not injecting oneself as a go between. If they have issues understanding the material they're much better off asking the OP directly than asking the manager who doesn't understand it either. And they'll be in a much better place to do that if they have read the material OP actually wrote.

reply
Well, OP can learn from the experience or turn it into a hill to die on. Learning doesn't imply you were ever wrong, only that something you did produced an unintended result -- people are themselves problems to navigate around, not people whose actions you have to read as judgements.
reply
> Because people don't like to read writing which has taken such effort to produce, because it then requires a great effort to read.

I disagree, but stipulate that. Why would this be reasonable behavior when doing knowledge work?

reply
> You're assuming malign motivations, I'm assuming misplaced ones.

Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

reply
And sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I'm not seeing the point.

reply
Or, to put another way, “never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance”
reply
When I read documentation, I'm not there to enjoy the experience. I'm there to find out how the documented thing works and how to use it. It's not a novel. I'm not there for entertainment.

Chasing readability without maintaining accuracy is a failure in the context of documentation no matter the motivations involved.

I'm not saying that readability can't be a consideration when making documentation. I am saying that if you discard accuracy in the process, you've fucked up quite badly.

This anecdote would likely be very different if the AI-modified version had been passed back to engineering for a review before sending it out.

reply