Provided he reviewed it and checked the readme is telling the users what it needs to tell them - what's the issue? I've found documentation to be one of the better tasks AI can perform and see no reason why not to use it provided a human is in the loop.
I agree, but its tricky as many people seem to not read it and I have seen AI documentation that is so verbose and dense that its almost as useless as not having it. Its a fine line but so long as the AI documentation is reviewed and reasonable then I see no issue.
1. In reality most people simply do not do this, and frankly it's exhausting to be expected to always assume goodwill in a setting that is full of pure vanity.
2. There's a difference between technical documentation, which AI can be quite decent at, and product marketing. A README is usually about 20/80, maybe 50/50 for large FOSS projects. You can have the AI write the sections on how to install the thing for all I care, but as soon as AI is telling me why I should use it, you've lost me. Signals a complete lack of interest in your own product.
I think this is a very good point. We have a natural bias toward human output as there is an illusion of full control - in reality even just from a solo dev perspective you've still got a load of hidden illogical persuasions that are influencing your code and how you approach a problem. AI has its own biases that come out of the nature its training on large unknowable data sets, but I'd argue the 'black box' thinking that comes out that isn't too different to the black box of the human mind. That's not at all to say that AI isn't worse (even if quicker) than top developer talent today writing handwritten code - just that the barrier to getting that level of quality isn't as insurmountable as it might appear.
