[Morromist]

"I actually communicate more information efficiently than I would have ever put the effort into before"

- this is subjective and evidence seems to point to the opposite in my view. In reality most people who think they communicate better with AI don't actually read what the AI has written for them and just puke it out on the world, expecting their readers to do the work.

The Ai almost always writes boring, repetitive garbage and very, very often includes redundant information. But saying it creates more efficiant communication is a great excuse for being sloppy and lazy.

[fluidcruft]

I have had the same experience, personally. i.e. asking Claude to simplify things for c-suite has gotten (1) extremely positive feedback from c-suite and (2) actually relevant conversation about decisions. It's certainly not a one-shot but iteration with Claude is so fast that it takes just a few hours vs plotting weeks about how to clarify technical decisions. But Intend to work in a "try it this way" sort of iteration where I need to rewrite things and see what they look like. But using Claude/ChatGPT for options about whether things make sense is very helpful (for me). The speed of iteration is great.

[Chinjut]

The C-suite are barely human, so robot-speak appeals to them.

[hectdev]

Which one is it? Subjective or evidence based? I'm sharing what I know is true for my experience as well as the fact that I proofread what I send with AI and am aware of how terse I usually am.