[sheept]

People don't want to read LLM-generated docs though. It'll lack the context to justify why things were designed the way they were, and there's always a risk of hallucination so you still have to verify the documentation's claims, since the person who published it likely did not scrutinize it.

[rtkwe]

There's two major types of documentation "why is this like this" documentation and then there's "here's the features of this library/tool" documentation. LLM stuff is fine for the latter as long as you screen it for hallucinations. Your right the former they can't really do because they don't have access to the reasoning but I've often found even the latter to be lacking in many teams.

[andrekandre]

  > LLM stuff is fine for the latter as long as you screen it for hallucinations

that is such a productivity black-hole tho; at that point i might as well have written it myself

[rtkwe]

IMO that's down to how you personally feel about the two sides of the process. For me the initial writing is super tedious and I've never gotten great at the voice of technical documentation but checking it for errors and correcting that is easy.

[shigawire]

If you have artifacts saved as you develop it can use those when writing docs to capture intent and design decisions.