I feel like the whole AI conversation is dominated by two extremes. Those who believe in AGI, and AI skeptics. I’m trying to approach it as a tool that may or may not be useful. Here are some things I’ve found so far.

Useful as an editing partner. For things where I have a clear point of view, I produce a first draft and then use AI to refine and clarify. It will just go on endlessly though, so I have been telling it “I have limited time to spend on this, please stop once the feedback is chasing diminishing returns”. I think this works for me because I am quick to write and slow to edit.

➡️ For similar reasons, I’m enthused about AI feedback on PRs.

Helpful for generating feedback. If I’m reviewing something, I can use a similar process to refine my feedback. So I will put in the doc, my initial thoughts, and ask it what else – again being judicious about what I include. Or the doc, the additional clarification I wrote, and then use the combination of those to generate a feedback. It means that I can read something once and query it, rather than reading multiple times to check my thoughts – the longer what it is I’m reviewing, the more useful that is.

➡️ Like all women in tech, I’m continually walking the tightrope between being a b*tch and being a pushover, so I’m trying to offload any overthinking of “tone” to AI. My current workflow here is to tell it: “You are a busy engineering leader, who wants {team|person|whatever} to get their shit together”, and then “Now soften it a bit so people don’t think you’re mean”.

Mixed for structuring things. I’ve also been trying to use AI to create structures or plans, typically for things I don’t know much about (if I know about it, the structure is normally very clear to me). Here, I’ve had mixed results.

• For example, I tried to use it to generate a book promotion plan for me. It was okay, but initially gave me a full time job’s worth of work. After a few rounds I got something that is more doable, but I’m still not sure how good it is (also I have failed to do it, suggesting the lack of plan was not the only problem).
• Another example, I tried to use it to create a structure for a proposal around professional development. I put in some bits and pieces – a conversation with a colleague about it, some disjointed thoughts, and got something out that I only have the expertise to tell is bad, and I’m not sure how to make it better. (Although telling the AI “this is bad, try again” has been surprisingly effective).

Both of these examples were places where I have some amount of expertise, but a relatively narrow point of view, deeply anchored in my own experience. As a result, I was struggling to move something forward or know how to prioritize, I wanted AI to help me get from half formed idea -> plan, but perhaps I need to add an interim step of half formed idea -> deeper understanding -> plan.

All in all, this I think supports a theme of what I’ve been hearing about AI, for example on the impact on senior devs (good for productivity) versus juniors (destroying their learning).

• For things you know well, it can be a productivity boost.
• For things you don’t know, it can give the illusion of knowledge. This is dangerous for knowledge workers, as it can result in wasting time and going down the wrong path. Also, if you submit it to someone who does have that knowledge, an excess of nonsense will be judged more harshly than a gap.
• It tends to be overly comprehensive and includes excessive low value information.

For my own takeaways:

• As a writer, it’s a productivity tool not a generator. I am clear on my voice and despise reading obviously AI generated content so I would not do that to others.
• As an overthinker and procrastinator, it’s good to offload some things that I might spend disproportionate time on or not do.
• As a leader, who spends more time reviewing other’s work than creating, I need to adjust my approach to filter out noise and validate structure first.