Skip Navigation

How do you think Apple's AI rewrite (Writing Tools) performed in their example from WWDC?

I highlighted what I might have wanted to carry over to a more professional rewrite. (If the filename was real, I'd sanitize it so as not to single out any one employee, but I do think it's an effective example.)

Using these powerful tools

is lazy, unprofessional, and could result in a catastrophically expensive, embarrassing mistake

if someone's not careful :)

Source: Apple Intelligence on Apple.com


OK, this is kinda funny. I wanted to make sure I'd actually seen this in WWDC. Turns out they showed a different rewrite (embedded below):

I think I see what happened. The [macOS] rewrite shown is more 1:1, but comes out sounding goofy (very LLM). On their site, they didn't want to show that, but then they used an [iOS] rewrite that missed e.g. the filename used as an example. Even someone skimming the email should see that filename was garbage and be afraid of getting called out in a meeting for typing a name like that in the future, so I think it's a miss not to have it.

Not to make a mountain out of a small example or two, but I do hope folks are aware they'd do best to read every word of anything generated for them. Reminds me: I'm excited for that word-by-word suggestion feature as it allows for one-by-one modifications to be very intentionally made.

17 comments
  • The LLM edit shows a lack of care and detail. Bloodless, bland, not compelling. I would prefer to say things the human way, and I prefer to be spoken to the same way. Someone sent me an LLM email once and it made me feel just lonely and bored.

17 comments