[the-anarchist]

Doesn't mean that the author might not use AI to optimise legibility. You can write stuff yourself and use an LLM to enhance the reading flow. Especially for non-native speakers it is immensely helpful to do so. Doesn't mean that the content is "AI-generated". The essence is still written by a human.

[tredre3]

> Doesn't mean that the author might not use AI to optimise legibility.

I agree that there is a difference between entirely LLM-generated, and LLM-reworded. But the statement is unequivocal to me:

> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written

If an LLM was used in any fashion, then this statement is simply a lie.

[mrob]

>If an LLM was used in any fashion, then this statement is simply a lie.

While I don't believe the article was created this way, it's possible to use an LLM purely as a classifier. E.g. prompt along the lines of "Does this paragraph contain any errors? Answer only yes or no." and generate only a single set of token probabilities, without any autoregression. Flag any paragraphs with sufficient probability of "yes" for human review.

[lukan]

But then you cannot write that

"The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written"

[blt]

Clarity in writing comes mostly from the logical structure of ideas presented. Writing can have grammar/style errors but still be clear. If the structure is bad after translation, then it was bad before translation too.