There is no pedagogical intent behind these tools. In this sense, they are a clear example of why LLMs do not understand the meaning of words, merely regurgitating terms that, in the absence of context, make no sense.The upside is that, in the case of many repositories, they can serve as a great example of what bad documentation looks like:"What makes me furious with the heat of a thousand Suns is the fact that some devs could be lured into thinking that this sort of ersatz manuals can check the docs box at all. That some could find these self-inflicted wikis a valid replacement of human-made docs shows the same kind of ignorance (or cynicism) about technical writing that folks display when praising art made by AI.Docs are a product. They require sustained and intelligent effort over a long period of time, as well as a strong community ready to contribute. Docs are the mirror and lore of your code and design, instruments that help you think about what you are architecting and developing. Docs serve purposes and needs. Great docs explain, guide, help, and illustrate. They’re deeply flawed and human. They must be.These wikis, on the other hand, are cargo cult documentation as a service. Their structure could be described as randomly assembling brutalist housing blocks from piles of bricks, their nav a barely plausible FrankenBar that always feels the same. Of course docs must have diagrams, they say, we’re not dummies.While it’s very positive that developers see the lack of docs as an issue, these wikis are not a solution." passo.uno/ai-wikis-docs-teathe