| Love it. I do think there is more activism at play than you might. At a minimum it provides the fear mechanism that prevents employees from challenging the work, particularly if they aren't even on the project (why stick your neck out?). However, the code format for prose analogy illuminates the writing quality angle brilliantly. I'm sure I'm not alone in having distinct communication modes in work documents, each with their own reasons to be excluded from the ML dataset: 1. Keep it simple -- when achieved it is highly effective for communicating a work memo, but would be terribly dry if used in auto suggestions for an English major struggling through crafting moving prose. 2. Lazily verbose -- going long is more expedient than crafting a compact message. It's mostly unrefined garbage. (exhibit a this comment) 3. Everything is awesome (positivity inflation) -- a deluge of great, love, awesome, wonderful, perfect, etc. all applied to far too many things, far too often. Imagine if an ML code formatter included psudeo code inputs, or was given a data set of every local file change
(pre-commit) instead of what is sitting in a main branch? My Docs are filled with things that I'd never commit much less pass a code review. If Google Docs was only used in corporate settings, and we wanted to double down on our drab corporate communication styles, I guess the feature would make some sense. |