Anecdotally: I tried hook and crook to get the best flagship model at the time (Opus) to help with technical writing for a submission.
First, these models are not good at technical writing at all. They have no sense of the weight of a single sentence, they just love to blather.
Second, they can't keep the core technical story consistent throughout their completions. In other words, they can't "keep the main thing the main thing".
I had an early draft with AI writing, but by the time we submitted our work -- there was not a single piece of AI writing in the paper. And not without trying, I really did some iterations on trying to carefully craft context, give them a sense of the world model in which they needed to evaluate their additions, yada yada.
For clear and concise technical communication, it's a waste of time right now.
I'm so happy I have pre-LLM publications and blog posts to prove that my blathering isn't because I'm lazy and used Claude, it's just how I write (i.e., badly).
It would be v. funny if I got that wrong, but I do feel the need to point out that "badly" is indeed grammatically correct here because this is HN and pedantry is always on topic.
People over-correct and feel like they can't use "badly" because there is "feeling badly" discourse [0], but that pertains to "feeling" being a linking verb. "Write" is just your bog standard verb for which "badly", an adverb, is a totally valid modifier.
This is just a by the by, but in British English "feeling poorly" mostly means that you are ill. Amusingly it's become slightly euphemistic, so if someone is "a bit poorly" they probably have sniffles or a minor fever. If they are "very poorly" then you probably heard it from a hospital and they're just about dead.
Thus "I feel badly" ... "ok, what did you do?" vs. "I feel poorly" ... "ok, I'll get a bucket."
First, these models are not good at technical writing at all. They have no sense of the weight of a single sentence, they just love to blather.
Second, they can't keep the core technical story consistent throughout their completions. In other words, they can't "keep the main thing the main thing".
I had an early draft with AI writing, but by the time we submitted our work -- there was not a single piece of AI writing in the paper. And not without trying, I really did some iterations on trying to carefully craft context, give them a sense of the world model in which they needed to evaluate their additions, yada yada.
For clear and concise technical communication, it's a waste of time right now.