At work our documentation isn’t just getting littered with annoying jargon. It isn’t just all the hallucinations, either. (Since when has documentation ever been 100% trustworthy?) It’s that it’s so poorly written and structured that it’s becoming borderline incomprehensible.
My company is currently considering making, “Why should I bother to read something you didn’t bother to write?” an official policy because even the executives are starting to burn out on all the time they have to spend wading through slop.
He's going to be annoyed that none of that work was used. But the reality is, at least 75% of claude generated text is pointless.
It's easy to blame the engineer, but all too often they don't deserve it.
Sorry that happened to you.
I've found them useful to review docs for factual consistency and potential sources of confusion, but the correct workflow from that point is IMO to correct the draft yourself and then say "better now?"
Woah woah woah human, you can't just say there are "far too many" pipes with similar names to abbreviate their labels, the most I'll allow you is a "large number".
Of course there will be models trained on much less code and technical writing, and they will create more natural sounding prose, but they will lack the deep intelligence of frontier models. Seems like a fair tradeoff.
[1] watch the first couple of minutes on this bycloud video on scaling training data mixtures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD93kfArOik