> "The engineers refusing to try aren’t protecting themselves; quite the opposite, they’re falling behind. The gap is widening between engineers who’ve integrated these tools and engineers who haven’t. The first group is shipping faster, taking on bigger challenges. The second group is… not."
Honest question for the engineers here. Have you seen this happening at your company? Are strong engineers falling behind when refusing to integrate AI into their workflow?
Agree with OP that LLMs are a great tool for this use case. It's made possible because OP diligently created useful input data. Unfortunately OP's conclusion goes against the AI hype machine. If "consuming" is the "superpower" of AI, then the current level of investment/attention would not be justified.
I had the same initially confusing experience as the author, confusing "polish" for the language "Polish". The product manager should have used AI to get feedback on this feature...
I put the following into chatGPT: "I am a developer for an email client. I want to incorporate some AI features to help users write more polished emails. I'm thinking I will have an option that appears under the email body where a user can click "Polish". Can you see any issues with this UX?"
ChatGPT: There are a few potential issues or points of confusion with a button labeled “Polish”:
Ambiguity:
Some users might confuse “Polish” (as in “to make shiny or more refined”) with “Polish” (the language). If your product is used internationally or by non-native English speakers, that label can be unintentionally confusing.
Even among English speakers, “Polish” may not be immediately clear as a writing enhancement feature—people might wonder, “What exactly does it do?”
Lack of Context:
If users don’t already know what the feature does, they won’t know what to expect when they click “Polish.”
You may need a tooltip, hover text, or short description like “Improve your text with AI suggestions” so users understand it’s about refinement, grammar, tone, etc.
User Control:
How much will it change their text? Will it rewrite in a new style or just fix grammar?
If it makes heavier changes, users might worry about losing their personal style or voice. Be clear about the scope of the changes.
Trust & Consent:
Users may have privacy concerns if their email content is being sent to an AI for processing. Even if that’s already in your privacy policy, the feature’s label (just “Polish”) doesn’t convey what happens behind the scenes.
You might consider adding a “What will happen to my text?” link or a discreet explanation about how data is handled.
Alternative Wording:
Using a label like “Improve,” “Refine,” “Enhance,” or “Polish Text” might provide clearer expectations.
You might also consider dynamic or contextual labeling like “Improve Grammar & Clarity.”
How to address these concerns:
Add clarity in the UI: A short descriptive text or tooltip under the “Polish” button can briefly explain what the feature does: “AI-powered text improvements.”
Offer user choice: Present a preview of the changes before they commit. Let them accept or reject individual suggestions so they feel in control.
Signal the feature’s AI: Some users will want to know that an AI is involved, especially if they’re concerned about style changes or privacy. Labeling it as “Polish with AI” or something similar can help set expectations.
Overall, the idea of a quick “one-click to refine” feature is appealing, but make sure the button’s purpose and functionality are crystal clear—both to avoid confusion and to build user trust.
I'm not sure it's the right thing to ban TikTok, but I'm not surprised people aren't protesting in the streets. My feeling is that most people are addicted to these apps, not using them for the utility or pleasure they bring. These users have a deep down sense that they'd be better off without these apps. Instagram won't be banned, but if it were I think there might be a similar non-reaction.
I went to UPenn for engineering. I could do these things but not at a professional level. I would definitely not call them "standard". Almost everything I know how to do in excel I learned at work. Knowing how to send an email is different than knowing how to manage your entire working life in email / to dos. Presenting is similar. We had to present information often and I think I was strong at presenting coming out of college. However, many of the people I work with are very weak in one or more of these areas, so it seems like people aren't well prepared coming out of school (even those from top universities).
I'm not too familiar with Admob or other mobile ad platforms, but don't they let you sell inventory directly already? I think the reason this is less desirable for both publishers and advertisers is the amount of work involved in direct sales efforts. As an app publisher, you may not have time to go out and sell direct spots on your network (which will be necessary if you don't already have the kind of data about your users that facebook / google provide). Advertisers have a similar problem on the other side, in that using facebook/google services allows them to easily target their audience based on data about them. How will your adnetwork address that need?
>I think the author is missing an important point: people who are genuinely curious about Holocaust usually don't type "did the holocaust happen"
This seems to make a big assumption about what defines "people who are genuinely curious". I think your queries of "holocaust statistics", "holocaust wikipedia", etc would instead describe someone who genuinely knows how to critically think and search for information, as opposed to someone who is simply "curious". You or I would search for info in that way, but a curious person could be anyone (e.g. a child or a teenager who has just been told by a peer that the holocaust was a hoax). Their first instinct might not be to search for specific sources or statistics, but rather to type "did the holocaust happen".
I am no Trump fan, but I noticed a couple of points that might be misguided or incomplete:
1. "Trump's casual racism, misogyny, and conspiracy theories are without precedent among major presidential nominees."
-- I think this is probably a stretch. I would guess that many previous candidates were just as bad if not worse. It just so happens now that everything candidates say or tweet is recorded, played back, and ultimately scrutinized far more than in the past.
2. "We are a nation of immigrants, and we know that immigrants built this country (and Trump, of course, is the grandson of immigrants and married to an immigrant)."