4 ms·

You're assuming malign motivations, I'm assuming misplaced ones. It seems more likely to me the manager tried to read it and struggled, then generated something

You're assuming malign motivations, I'm assuming misplaced ones. It seems more likely to me the manager tried to read it and struggled, then generated something of equivalent size or larger. I'm taking it the generated document passed around was actually at least as large as the one-pager, and hence entirely pointless to rephrase even with the malign motivations you're assuming. Since the poster here wears his personality and writing motivations on his sleeve, it is very obvious to me that he writes at cross purposes with those who read. he says very clearly: he writes for precision, expended a vast cognitive effort per word. Even if, in this instance, my analysis is wrong -- its a comment for the poster here worth considering. Because people don't like to read writing which has taken such effort to produce, because it then requires a great effort to read.

sjsdaiuasgdia 6mo ago
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.
- crispyambulance 6mo ago
  > 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. You're right to elevate accuracy to a high level of importance, but that is NOT ENOUGH if the thing is has poor readability. The audience has to be able to understand the document if the document is to be useable. There's only a certain amount of effort anyone can deliver in producing a document. But if the author can't deliver readability, they need to follow up the document with a lot of support and/or get some help to make it useable.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 6mo ago
    I've struggled through some absolutely awful documentation over the years. I'll put up with incredibly broken English and other problems as long as the accuracy is there. Just last week I encountered a pinout diagram that used emojis to indicate which pins related to which data channel. Not a choice I would have made, and I found it made the diagram harder to read. But it was accurate - I wired it up per the diagram and everything worked as intended. Documentation lacking accuracy is useless. It can be the most readable thing ever produced, but if it describes a different thing than what was intended to be documented, it's trash. Documentation that is hard to read but is accurate still has value. Regarding "follow up the document with a lot of support" - did you catch the part of the anecdote where the author is having to deal with support requests because of the inaccuracies?
pwdisswordfishq 6mo ago
> You're assuming malign motivations, I'm assuming misplaced ones. Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
- butlike 6mo ago
  And sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I'm not seeing the point.
- moffers 6mo ago
  Or, to put another way, “never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance”
- MichaelZuo 6mo ago
  Bingo, it’s pointless trying to suss out beyond a certain threshold. Just assume it’s a mix.
nicoburns 6mo ago
> 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.
- mjburgess 6mo ago
  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.
- godelski 6mo ago
  > it's poor management to interpose oneself between employees. I didn't interpret mjburgess as defending the manager or even condoning the action. In fact, I read their comments as recognizing that action as a failure. The difference is that mj was trying to give advice to donatj, and donatj can't control what their manager does. So the advice is crafted such that it gives actionable suggestions to donatj. Yet, that might not be the correct interpretation. I don't know, I'm some third party, like you. Personally I agree that this is poor management but I don't think just blaming the problem on the manager solves anything, it just leaves the problem broken. So the things to do are either fix the problem or figure out how to work with the broken thing.
  - watwut 6mo ago
    > So the things to do are either fix the problem or figure out how to work with the broken thing. So, I will say that if you did not seen or read a text in question, there is no way for you to accurately diagnose issues with the text and give out advice on how to make it better. Such advice from someone who simply assumes the way the text was wrong based on some manager rewriting it with ai is less then useless. It is, frankly, ridiculous to think one can give meaningful advice about text you have never seen. And then double down in comments.
nh23423fefe 6mo ago
> 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?
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
watwut 6mo ago
> You're assuming malign motivations, I'm assuming misplaced ones. And in the process, you give zero benefit of the doubt to OP. You just assume he wrote it badly.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- 3form 6mo ago
  I see this behavior in many people, usually conflict averse. In a poor attempt to mediate, spread incompetence like butter on a slice of bread. Ranges from tiring to infuriating.
lamasery 6mo ago
I would assume the manager's a terrible reader and writer. Most people are. Most managers are. It's one of those upsetting things I've learned about the world as an adult, that's sharply contrary to what I believed as a child. I kept being surprised by all kinds of things until I began really to appreciate that, simply, most folks aren't especially literate. Even ones who attend and attain degrees from universities—surely at least nearly-all of those people can read and understand "college level" texts with some fluency? But no, that's, somehow, not even close to true.
klustregrif 6mo ago
> It seems more likely to me the manager tried to read it and struggled Well obviously the manager struggled to read and understand it and also struggled to read the AI results. The clear root cause is utter incompetence on the managers part. Any feedback they wanted to give could be given, but you NEVER pass along modified documents as though they where what another author had created AI or not. If you don’t like it you can provide feedback or ask to coauthor another document, you never just append TFTFY with changes and send it along with the original author standing to take the consequences of whatever you cooked up. It’s just complete incompetence on the part of the manager.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

sjsdaiuasgdia 6mo ago

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.

crispyambulance 6mo ago
> 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. You're right to elevate accuracy to a high level of importance, but that is NOT ENOUGH if the thing is has poor readability. The audience has to be able to understand the document if the document is to be useable. There's only a certain amount of effort anyone can deliver in producing a document. But if the author can't deliver readability, they need to follow up the document with a lot of support and/or get some help to make it useable.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 6mo ago
  I've struggled through some absolutely awful documentation over the years. I'll put up with incredibly broken English and other problems as long as the accuracy is there. Just last week I encountered a pinout diagram that used emojis to indicate which pins related to which data channel. Not a choice I would have made, and I found it made the diagram harder to read. But it was accurate - I wired it up per the diagram and everything worked as intended. Documentation lacking accuracy is useless. It can be the most readable thing ever produced, but if it describes a different thing than what was intended to be documented, it's trash. Documentation that is hard to read but is accurate still has value. Regarding "follow up the document with a lot of support" - did you catch the part of the anecdote where the author is having to deal with support requests because of the inaccuracies?

pwdisswordfishq 6mo ago

> You're assuming malign motivations, I'm assuming misplaced ones. Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

butlike 6mo ago
And sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I'm not seeing the point.
moffers 6mo ago
Or, to put another way, “never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance”
MichaelZuo 6mo ago
Bingo, it’s pointless trying to suss out beyond a certain threshold. Just assume it’s a mix.

nicoburns 6mo ago

> 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.

mjburgess 6mo ago
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.
godelski 6mo ago
> it's poor management to interpose oneself between employees. I didn't interpret mjburgess as defending the manager or even condoning the action. In fact, I read their comments as recognizing that action as a failure. The difference is that mj was trying to give advice to donatj, and donatj can't control what their manager does. So the advice is crafted such that it gives actionable suggestions to donatj. Yet, that might not be the correct interpretation. I don't know, I'm some third party, like you. Personally I agree that this is poor management but I don't think just blaming the problem on the manager solves anything, it just leaves the problem broken. So the things to do are either fix the problem or figure out how to work with the broken thing.
- watwut 6mo ago
  > So the things to do are either fix the problem or figure out how to work with the broken thing. So, I will say that if you did not seen or read a text in question, there is no way for you to accurately diagnose issues with the text and give out advice on how to make it better. Such advice from someone who simply assumes the way the text was wrong based on some manager rewriting it with ai is less then useless. It is, frankly, ridiculous to think one can give meaningful advice about text you have never seen. And then double down in comments.

nh23423fefe 6mo ago

> 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?

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

watwut 6mo ago

> You're assuming malign motivations, I'm assuming misplaced ones. And in the process, you give zero benefit of the doubt to OP. You just assume he wrote it badly.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
3form 6mo ago
I see this behavior in many people, usually conflict averse. In a poor attempt to mediate, spread incompetence like butter on a slice of bread. Ranges from tiring to infuriating.

lamasery 6mo ago

I would assume the manager's a terrible reader and writer. Most people are. Most managers are. It's one of those upsetting things I've learned about the world as an adult, that's sharply contrary to what I believed as a child. I kept being surprised by all kinds of things until I began really to appreciate that, simply, most folks aren't especially literate. Even ones who attend and attain degrees from universities—surely at least nearly-all of those people can read and understand "college level" texts with some fluency? But no, that's, somehow, not even close to true.

klustregrif 6mo ago

> It seems more likely to me the manager tried to read it and struggled Well obviously the manager struggled to read and understand it and also struggled to read the AI results. The clear root cause is utter incompetence on the managers part. Any feedback they wanted to give could be given, but you NEVER pass along modified documents as though they where what another author had created AI or not. If you don’t like it you can provide feedback or ask to coauthor another document, you never just append TFTFY with changes and send it along with the original author standing to take the consequences of whatever you cooked up. It’s just complete incompetence on the part of the manager.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]