I like this use of LLM because I assume both the developer and ticket owner will review the text and agree to its contents. The LLM could help ensure the ticket is thorough and its meaning is understood by all parties. One downside is verbosity, but the humans in the loop can edit mercilessly. Without human review, these tickets would have all the downsides of vibe coding.

Thank you for sharing this workflow. I have low tolerance for LLM written text, but this seems like a really good use case.

Wait until you learn that the people on the other side of your ticket updates are also using LLMs to respond. It's LLMs talking to LLMs now.

Wait until you learn that most people's writing skills are that of below LLMs, so it's an actual tangible improvement (as long as you review the output for details not being missed, of course)

Hoisted by your own petard ("me old fruit"):

"Wait until you learn that most people's writing skills are that of below LLMs"

... went askew at "that of below LLMs".

I'm an arse: soz!

The desired result is coming to a documented agreement on an interaction, not some exercise in argument that has to happen between humans.

I find having an LLM create tickets for itself to implement to be an effective tool that I rarely have to provide feedback for at all.

This seems like greybeards complaining that people who don't write assembly by hand.

Who has ever complained that kids don't write assembly by hand?

Stop being outraged for things that are only real on your mind.

Speaking of things that are only real in your mind...

Am I outraged?

And yes, there absolutely was a vocal group of a certain type of programmer complaining about high level languages like C and their risks and inefficiency and lack of control insisting that real programmers wrote code in assembly. It's hard to find references because google sucks these days and I'm not really willing to put in the effort.

You made it up, that is why you can't find it.

How's [0] or [1] for historical sources?

It's not surprising that Google doesn't turn these up, the golden era of this complaining was pre-WWW.

[0]: https://www.ee.torontomu.ca/~elf/hack/realmen.html [1]: https://melsloop.com/

Have you not noticed that the story you reference is so well know because... literally every single developer thinks people like Mel are crazy?

Mel or Terry Adams are the exception to the rule... Having that image of greybeards only come if you have never worked with one in real life, sorry you are biased.

A significant part of my workflow is getting a ticket that is ill-defined or confused and rewriting it so that it is something I can do or not do.

From time to time I have talked over a ticket with an LLM and gotten back what I think is a useful analysis of the problem and put it into the text or comments and I find my peeps tend to think these are TLDR.

Yeah, most people won't read things. At the beginning of my career I wrote emails that nobody read and then they'd be upset about not knowing this or that which I had already explained. Such is life, I stopped writing emails.

An LLM will be just as verbose as you ask it to be. The default response can be very chatty, but you can figure out how to ask it to give results in various lengths.