[DeborahWrites]

Yeah. AI might replace tech writers (just like it might replace anyone), but it won't be a GOOD replacement. The companies with the best docs will absolutely still have tech writers, just with some AI assistance.

Tech writing seems especially vulnerable to people not really understanding the job (and then devaluing it, because "everybody can write" - which, no, if you'll excuse the slight self-promotion but it saves me repeating myself https://deborahwrites.com/blog/nobody-can-write/)

In my experience, tech writers often contribute to UX and testing (they're often the first user, and thus bug reporter). They're the ones who are going to notice when your API naming conventions are out of whack. They're also the ones writing the quickstart with sales & marketing impact. And then, yes, they're the ones bringing a deep understanding of structure and clarity.

I've tried AI for writing docs. It can be helpful at points, but my goodness I would not want to let anything an AI wrote out the door without heavy editing.

[Nextgrid]

> it won't be a GOOD replacement

See my other comment - I'm afraid quality only matters if there is healthy competition which isn't the case for many verticals: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46631038

[FeteCommuniste]

> AI might replace tech writers (just like it might replace anyone), but it won't be a GOOD replacement.

[insert Pawn Stars meme]: "GOOD docs? Sorry, best I can do is 'slightly better than useless.'"

[topaz0]

with the occasional "much worse than useless" thrown in as a bonus

[shiroiuma]

>AI might replace tech writers (just like it might replace anyone), but it won't be a GOOD replacement.

That's fine, though: as long as the AI's output is better than "completely and utterly useless", or even "nonexistent", it'll be an improvement in many places.