TL;DR
An open letter warns companies that replacing technical writers with LLMs is a mistake, arguing AI-generated documentation lacks empathy, strategy and reliable accuracy. The author urges firms to reinstate or hire tech writers and to treat AI as an augmentation tool with policy and oversight.
What happened
In a January 2026 letter, the author addressed companies that eliminated or declined to hire technical writers on the premise that large language models could replace them. The piece argues that documentation is more than polished prose: it represents product truth and requires investigation, empathy and editorial judgment that models do not possess. The author says LLM-produced docs are prone to subtle fabrication, lack strategic vision about what to document, and miss edge cases and caveats. The letter also warns that liability for harmful instructions does not disappear if an AI produced them. Citing industry voices, the author contends productivity gains come when writers are given AI tools, training and time to experiment, and calls for employers to reconsider cuts and to build AI policies that preserve content quality.
Why it matters
- Documentation shapes how users understand and safely operate products; poor docs can make software unusable or dangerous.
- AI models can produce plausible but incorrect guidance, creating legal and operational risks for companies.
- Technical writers provide context curation and strategy needed for reuse, edge-case coverage and long-term content quality.
- Augmenting writers with AI tools — rather than replacing them — may unlock productivity gains while retaining accountability.
Key facts
- The letter was published in January 2026 and reflects on developments during 2025.
- The author argues that LLMs lack empathy, vision and the ability to decide what should or should not be documented.
- AI-generated documentation can hallucinate or subtly fabricate information, according to the letter.
- Liability for harmful instructions remains with organizations or people, not with the AI model.
- Tasks such as semantic tagging and crafting context for retrieval-augmented generation are described as a form of technical writing renamed as context curation.
- The author cites industry figures, noting even some AI founders have expressed uncertainty about the technology's trajectory.
- The letter recommends providing tech writers with AI tools, training and clear AI policies to protect content quality.
- The author thanks reviewers Tiffany Hrabusa, Casey Smith and Anna Urbiztondo, and mentions a partner named Valentina.
What to watch next
- Whether companies that cut or froze technical-writing roles reverse those decisions in response to quality or liability issues (not confirmed in the source).
- Adoption of AI-augmented workflows and experiments by technical-writing teams, which the author says are already underway.
- Development and enforcement of AI policies specific to product documentation and runbooks (not confirmed in the source).
Quick glossary
- Technical writer: A professional who documents software or products by gathering information, structuring content, and producing guides that help users understand and use a product.
- LLM (large language model): A machine-learning model trained on large text corpora that generates human-like text but can produce incorrect or fabricated information.
- RAG (retrieval-augmented generation): An approach that combines retrieved external context with a language model to generate responses that reference source material.
- Docs: Short for documentation: the manuals, guides, runbooks and help content that explain how a product works and how to use it safely.
Reader FAQ
Can AI fully replace technical writers?
According to the letter, no — AI lacks empathy, editorial judgment and the ability to set documentation strategy.
Are companies liable for errors in AI-generated documentation?
The letter warns that liability remains with organizations or individuals; the model cannot be held accountable.
What is the suggested path forward?
The author recommends rehiring or hiring technical writers, equipping them with AI tools and training, and creating AI policies to protect content quality.
Is there evidence that augmentation works?
The author cites examples and industry comments suggesting productivity gains when writers are augmented by AI, but broader outcomes are not detailed in the source.
To those who fired or didn't hire tech writers because of AI Posted on Jan 12, 2026 Hey you, Yes, you, who are thinking about not hiring a technical writer…
Sources
Related posts
- Handy: Free Open-Source Offline Speech-to-Text App for macOS, Windows, Linux
- nao Labs Seeks Founding Engineer to Build Open-Source Analytics Agent
- Opera One R3 arrives with color-coded Tab Islands and new soundscapes