Original Summary

原文: I Don’t Want to Read What You Didn’t Write People who rarely produced original writing are suddenly producing extensive design proposals, business plans, documentation, presentations, tickets, pull requests, blog articles, and meeting summaries, all generated by AI. It is all unreadable. AI is helping me write better and faster, but I’m fed up with reading almost anything written by AI. In this essay, I want to express my frustration, and describe how I’m finding value in AI for writing.People who rarely produced original writing are suddenly producing extensive design proposals, business plans, documentation, presentations, tickets, pull requests, blog articles, and meeting summaries, all generated by AI. It is all unreadable. AI is helping me write better and faster, but I’m fed up with reading almost anything written by AI. In this essay, I want to express my frustration, and describe how I’m finding value in AI for writing. 那些很少产出原创文字的人，突然开始产出大量设计提案、商业计划、文档、演示文稿、工单、拉取请求、博客文章和会议纪要，全部由 AI 生成。这些内容全都不堪卒读。AI 正在帮助我写得更好、更快，但我已经受够了阅读几乎任何由 AI 写出的东西。在这篇文章中，我想表达我的沮丧，并描述我如何在写作中发现 AI 的价值。 AI Is Terrible for Writing AI 的写作真的是一坨 A pattern I see is that people use AI to build something new, then they use AI to retrospectively summarize what they have already built into a design document. Reading a document like this isn’t just difficult—it is punishing. The design document is no longer a proposal to build consensus, bring people along with you, and refine ideas through slow, deliberate thinking—it is a summary made by a machine, in exhausting detail, without context or perspective. It is unreadable. Inhumane. The authors of these documents become impatient when people aren’t engaged, and it is hard not to be, because the thing they built is already working. [1] 我看到的一种模式是，人们用 AI 构建新东西，然后又用 AI 回顾性地把他们已经构建出的东西总结成一份设计文档。阅读这样的文档不只是困难——简直是一种折磨。设计文档不再是为了建立共识、带着人们一起前进、并通过缓慢而深思熟虑的思考来完善想法的提案——它变成了机器生成的摘要，细节详尽到令人精疲力竭，却没有背景或视角。它根本读不下去。不近人情。这些文档的作者在人们不投入时会变得不耐烦，而人们很难投入，因为他们构建的东西已经在运转了。 [1] I also see more and more pull request summaries clearly written by machines for machines. They are rich in detail: this was changed to that, these things were split, those things were merged, this was left untouched, tests were added for this, and so on. But I’m left asking: Why are we doing this? What is the value? How risky or urgent is this work? Where do you want my input? What should I pay attention to? The same goes for tickets or meeting summaries made by AI. The writing, like more and more of the world, consists of statements outside of context. 我也越来越多地看到，pull request 摘要显然是由机器撰写、供机器阅读的。它们细节丰富：这个改成了那个，这些东西被拆分，那些东西被合并，这个原封未动，为此添加了测试，等等。但我却不禁想问：我们为什么要做这件事？价值在哪里？这项工作有多大风险或有多紧急？你希望我在哪里提供意见？我应该注意什么？由 AI 生成的工单或会议纪要也是如此。这种写作，就像世界上越来越多的事物一样，由脱离语境的陈述构成。 I had someone write me a personal message about a sensitive topic that was clearly workshopped with AI in an effort to nuance the conversation and not offend me. But the message became impersonal, dispassionate, and disjointed. It had all of the parts, but it didn’t make sense as a whole. I wasn’t interested in reading it, or responding. I would much rather someone be themselves and write with their own voice, or with some passion, even if they can’t quite find the words, or risk offending me. 有人就一个敏感话题给我写了一封私人消息，这显然是用 AI 反复打磨过的，想让对话更细致得体，不冒犯我。但这条消息变得没有人情味、不带感情，而且支离破碎。它各个部分都有，但作为一个整体却说不通。我没兴趣读它，也没兴趣回复。我宁愿人们做自己，用自己的声音，或者带着一些热情去写，哪怕他们一时找不到恰当的词，哪怕有可能冒犯我。 In relationships with others, there is vulnerability and risk. In communicating with your AI, there is none, and attempts to eliminate vulnerability and risk will eliminate the process of relationship itself. As Simon Sarris writes in Resist Summary , an essay I keep returning to: 在与他人相处的关系中，存在着脆弱与风险。而在与你的 AI 交流时，这些都不存在，而试图消除脆弱与风险的尝试，也将消除关系本身的过程。正如西蒙·萨里斯在《抵抗摘要》中所写，这篇文章我反复品读： Perhaps the laziest and most offensive use of AI writing I have seen: I had someone use AI to summarize my comments on their proposal as their response to me! Thanks! I couldn’t have said it better myself! [2] 或许我所见过的最懒惰、最令人反感的 AI 写作应用：有人竟用 AI 来总结我对他们提案的评论，作为对我的回应！真是谢谢了！我自己都没法说得比这更好！ [2] I Don’t Have the Context You Do 我没有你所谓的“上下文” Cynthia Dunlop recently shared survey results on reading AI-written articles entitled Report: How developers react to AI-scented blog posts . For the majority of readers, if they think an article is AI-assisted or AI-authored, they will stop reading (78%) and avoid the author in the future (71%). As Bryan Cantrill wrote about this research in his essay The revolt of the reader : “our brains pull an LLM-triggered ejection handle, bailing us out mid-sentence in an act of self-preservation.” Cynthia Dunlop 最近分享了一项关于阅读 AI 撰写文章的调查结果，题为《报告：开发者如何回应带有 AI 气味的博客文章》。对大多数读者来说，如果他们觉得一篇文章是由 AI 辅助或由 AI 撰写的，他们就会停止阅读（78%），并在未来避开该作者（71%）。正如 Bryan Cantrill 在其文章《读者的反抗》中谈到这项研究时所写：“我们的大脑会拉下由 LLM 触发的弹射手柄，在句子中途将我们弹出，作为一种自我保护行为。” The strongest result in the survey was people overwhelmingly preferred the author’s own writing (98%), with all its flaws and idiosyncrasies, as compared to a soulless rewrite by an AI. Writing authentically is one of the best ways to connect with people. It reminds me of a comment Bjarne Stroustrup, the creator of C++, made during a panel discussion I attended over a decade ago on writing books: 这项调查中最显著的结果是，相较于 AI 毫无灵魂的改写，人们以压倒性多数更喜欢作者自己的写作（98%），连同它所有的瑕疵和独特之处。真诚地写作是与他人建立联系的最佳方式之一。这让我想起 C++ 的创造者 Bjarne Stroustrup 十多年前在我参加的一场关于写书的专题讨论中所说的一句话： When you are the one who prompted the AI, the written output is often quite useful. But do not mistake this for effective writing. When you read the output, you already have lots of context—you formulated the prompts, established the constraints, and provided artefacts like documentation, source code, logs, statistics, pictures, etc., that led to the output. You can skim the output and quickly decide what is relevant and valuable versus what is irrelevant or wrong. You are also part of the process—prompting the AI and seeing the results—a call and an answer. You bring a human perspective to

  • 情报分类：商业与市场研究
  • 分类依据：内容涉及商业、投资或市场动态
  • 信息来源：服务器 / LINUX DO - 最新话题
  • 发布时间：2026/9/22 14:24:43