What amazes me is that people who write these articles must spend so little time reading them. Or are people just so blind to the quality of writing that they don't notice?
For the most part I do my own writing, because AI models aren't even close to reaching human quality. But for things like dynamically generated technical documentation or automated tasks (like summarizing the results of an automated anomaly investigation), where I cannot be in the loop, I find writing can be improved by asking for a specific style.
For example, if you ask for Simplified Technical English, we go from:
Storing a lake as thousands of 1 MB Parquet files is a bad practice anyway, and 2.0 does not rescue it. Fundamentals still matter!
To:
It is bad practice to store a data lake as thousands of 1 MB Parquet files. Version 2.0 does not correct this. The basic rules still apply.
Claude loves gerund phrases where the important stuff ("...is bad practice") is at the end, rather than the beginning ("it is bad practice to..."). But even if "x is y" is logically simpler, I think "it is y to x" is cognitively more intuitive to humans, especially for longer sentences where the x is a long explanation, because it mentally front-loads the topic under one heading: "bad: <stuff>" as opposed to "<stuff>: bad".
Claude's prose causes fatigue, I think, in part because the grammatical structure is at odds with how human cognition expects to be served information in their native language. But I also suspect that's a training thing. We've not grown up reading or writing like Claude.
For the most part I do my own writing, because AI models aren't even close to reaching human quality. But for things like dynamically generated technical documentation or automated tasks (like summarizing the results of an automated anomaly investigation), where I cannot be in the loop, I find writing can be improved by asking for a specific style.
For example, if you ask for Simplified Technical English, we go from:
To: Claude loves gerund phrases where the important stuff ("...is bad practice") is at the end, rather than the beginning ("it is bad practice to..."). But even if "x is y" is logically simpler, I think "it is y to x" is cognitively more intuitive to humans, especially for longer sentences where the x is a long explanation, because it mentally front-loads the topic under one heading: "bad: <stuff>" as opposed to "<stuff>: bad".Claude's prose causes fatigue, I think, in part because the grammatical structure is at odds with how human cognition expects to be served information in their native language. But I also suspect that's a training thing. We've not grown up reading or writing like Claude.