Where I work, my boss decided to make an application that uses AI to score long text field entries to ensure required information is present.
The AI lacks the ability to extract nuance and implicit information, which means entires end up being long winded and repeatitive. For each requirement its looking for, it must be explicity expressed-- it's quite unnatural, and almost feels like solving a puzzle, to which the obvious solution is to write a comment, then give it and the AI feedback to a failing comment to AI, so it can generate the proper structure the rubric-AI is looking for.
LLMs are statistically driven, and I can only imagine having the AI rewrite the comment produces a result that's more statistically fitting to the model than if any given human were to write it. So, it might mean, yeah, LLMs are better at writing resumes that the LLM can successfully classify-- are they better for a human to consume? Who knows.
Campbell believed all stories were the Hero's Journey in some convoluted manner or another. Could tell him you tripped down the stairs, and he'd say something like, 'yes, but going down those stairs again would be you learning to conquor your fears, thus resulting in a more well rounded person.'
Or you could say 'I should stop drinking milk, because I'm somewhat intolerant' and he'd say, 'ahh, yes, you're in the middle of the hero's journey, on the precibus of learning to set your desires aside for the betterment of your health'
Any story with conflict becomes the hero's journey, and what stories worth telling don't have some kind of conflict. 'Proto-story' nonsense.
Why's these seen as being difficilt to write? It's a giant switch statement that recurses. This is less indicative of AI coming a long way and more of programmers never working on a program that stores types as data, this being the most common and rote pattern that exists.