[hotnfresh]

I feel the same. I'm not sure there are many organizations out there applying AI detectors to writers they've had an existing, extensive relationship with, and then also giving a fuck if it pops up as a hit but they have no other complaints about the writing.

My wife's fairly connected to the writing world and I've not heard of this being a thing at all. Doesn't mean it's not anywhere, but if it were widespread I think I'd have heard of it. Most companies are trying to push more use of AI tools in writing, as far as I can tell, and I don't even have insight into content-farm parts of the market, where I assume it's just all AI all the time now.

[ghaff]

My experience is that I have to write some things that often have parts that are, for lack of a better word, somewhat boilerplate, e.g. preamble/background/explain some technical term I used/etc. Necessary but not core technical or otherwise differentiated content.

I've used LLMs for this as a sort of first draft. I edit the output but it's a perfectly serviceable way to get some words down and save me an hour or two.

[spondylosaurus]

In the realm of technical documentation, too, originality isn't a virtue in itself. (And I say this as a technical writer who doesn't even use LLMs regularly.)

If you needed to throw in a sentence or two ahout, e.g., what load balancing is, you're better off lifting a definition from an authoritative source than trying to come up with a "creative" rephrasing for its own sake. Standard terminology is standard because it works.