The Human Cost of AI: A Letter to Tech Leaders

An open letter published on January 15, 2026, takes a direct and unflinching look at a growing trend within the technology sector: the replacement of human technical writers with artificial intelligence. The letter, aimed squarely at the decision-makers who have made these cuts, challenges the prevailing narrative that AI can seamlessly take over the complex task of creating clear, effective documentation.

Beyond the immediate financial calculus, the piece explores the deeper, often overlooked implications of this shift. It questions whether the pursuit of efficiency through automation is inadvertently sacrificing the nuanced understanding and user-centric perspective that only human experts can provide. The letter serves as a critical examination of the human cost behind the industry's rapid embrace of AI.

The core argument presented in the letter centers on the hidden costs associated with firing experienced technical writers. While the initial savings from reduced payroll are clear and quantifiable, the long-term financial and reputational damage from poor documentation is far more difficult to measure. Inadequate guides, confusing API references, and misleading tutorials can lead to increased support tickets, frustrated developers, and ultimately, the abandonment of a product.

Technical writers do more than simply transcribe information; they act as a crucial bridge between complex engineering teams and end-users. Their role involves:

• Translating dense technical specifications into accessible, actionable content.
• Anticipating user questions and pain points before they arise.
• Maintaining a consistent voice and structure across vast documentation sets.
• Ensuring accuracy and clarity in a rapidly evolving product landscape.

Removing this layer of expertise creates a vacuum that AI tools, despite their advances, are not yet equipped to fill. The letter posits that this creates a false economy, where short-term gains are erased by long-term friction and user dissatisfaction.

The letter emphasizes that effective technical communication requires more than just data processing; it demands empathy, context, and a deep understanding of the user's journey. Human writers possess the ability to read between the lines of a product specification, understanding not just what a feature does, but why a user would need it and how they are likely to interact with it. This intuitive grasp is critical for creating documentation that is not only accurate but also genuinely helpful.

AI models, trained on existing data, can replicate patterns and generate text, but they struggle with the novel, the ambiguous, and the unspoken. They cannot conduct user interviews, observe a developer struggling with a new API, or feel the frustration of a poorly explained concept. The letter argues that this human element is the very ingredient that transforms a technical manual from a reference document into a powerful tool for adoption and success.

The letter suggests that the true value of a technical writer lies not in their ability to document what is already known, but in their capacity to illuminate what is not yet understood.

The consequences of this shift extend beyond user experience and into the core of innovation itself. When documentation is treated as a low-value, easily automated task, it creates a disconnect between the builders and the broader community that uses their tools. This can slow the pace of innovation, as a confused or frustrated user base is less likely to experiment, provide constructive feedback, or build upon the platform.

The letter frames this as a strategic misstep. By sidelining the professionals whose job it is to foster understanding and accessibility, companies risk building powerful tools that few can effectively use. This creates a barrier to entry that stifles growth and limits a product's potential reach. The discussion surrounding the letter on platforms like Hacker News reflects this concern, with many in the tech community expressing unease about the devaluation of clear communication.

Ultimately, the letter serves as a cautionary tale. It warns that in the race to automate, the industry may be discarding a critical component of its success: the human ability to connect, explain, and empower.

The open letter concludes not with a rejection of AI, but with a call for a more thoughtful and balanced integration. It suggests that the most powerful future lies in human-AI collaboration, where technology handles the repetitive and mundane aspects of documentation, freeing human writers to focus on higher-level strategy, user experience design, and complex problem-solving.

The central takeaway is a reminder that technology, no matter how advanced, serves human needs. The quality of documentation is a direct reflection of a company's commitment to its users. As the industry continues to evolve, the principles outlined in this letter will likely remain a relevant and important part of the conversation about how to build a future that is both efficient and humane.