[jaggederest]

Feed it into an AI and ask it to adversarially criticize it, doc for doc, send back 30 responses in a zip folder, wipe hands on pants, return to HN.

[nswango]

Don't know if you are serious, but why become part of the problem?

Why not just review a single document quickly, find an error which invalidates the document, and send it back saying "Policy paper 1 mentions X as being on the business plan for Y, it's not on the plan, please can you fix."

[lesostep]

Because they will fix it and send again.

Unless you can write a good-sounding reason why it's on them to review a LLM output before sending it to you, they will outsources this reviewing to you, and it's a lot of reviewing.

[nswango]

It's not a lot of reviewing if you simply find the first thing that makes the document unusable and call them out on it.

If it's genuinely hard to find that single bug .. perhaps the document has reached the quality required for corporate communication?

[lesostep]

Original comment stated that it was 10 documents, all LLM-generated.

In my experience, it does take a lot time and effort to find contradictions between 10 documents. Even with good documentation, it's hard to build a mental map for that amount of information.

[zufallsheld]

Because they'll just paste your remarks in their llm, let it correct the text and send it back to you.

[reed1234]

Why do your colleagues work when they could at least attempt it first?

[da_grift_shift]

This may actually be a solid way to tackle the bullshit asymmetry problem caused by drive-by LLM sloppers.

[jaggederest]

I always laugh because I've been practicing prompting every single day for the last few years, if they want to start a prompt fight, brother let me at 'em.