[serious_angel]

The website looked as any LLM ("AI") generated one, usually via Claude, considering the design that model frequently uses.

And it is (300,755++ lines from Claude): https://github.com/CraigVG/roman-letters-network

Here, I am sorry, but I just cannot consider it serious nor accountable, since I just cannot trust its data.

If all the information there is valid and verified, every single letter and the authors' word after the LLM's processing, then the "AI" may be dimmed.

Yet, I don't believe so, knowing how unlimitedly every subjective word may change contexts, and using objectified and limited LLM for it?

There's `?scholarly=true` GET parameter mentioned in the `:/CLAUDE.md`, but a quick check of its behavior didn't result in any change.

Regardless, the idea and overall intention that highlights the impact and importance of history, and presents connections between infinitely unique and miraculous people around the infinite world... where every single word carries a life moment... is ineffably magnificent...

Thank you, Craig Vander Galien, for the idea and love in history!

---

    > Modern English translations were produced using Claude (Anthropic), working from either the Latin/Greek original or an existing 19th-century English version. Translation work was guided by two internal documents: a translation guide covering late antique epistolary conventions, rhetorical register, and how to handle common formulaic phrases; and a modern voice guide specifying tone, vocabulary level, and how to avoid archaism while remaining faithful to the original.
    > 
    > AI-generated translations are clearly marked in the interface. They are provided for accessibility and research convenience, not as authoritative scholarly translations. The original Latin or Greek is preserved alongside every translation, and 19th-century English versions are shown where available. Corrections from domain experts are welcome.
    > 
    > Source: https://romanletters.org/about/

[craig_vg]

Serious Angel, thank you for the feedback on the project. The scholarly parameter should be working again now.

Overall, I completely agree with your criticisms about the LLM nature of this. Yes, the project is completely coded by Claude. It's a side project that I threw together based on my love of history. I'm not an academic nor a researcher, but I do want to provide value for those who have a hobbyist-level interest in Roman history. If the project can reach the quality level required for real scholarship, I'd like to achieve that. If not, I want to be clear that it's not at that level.

On that note, I have tried to include original sources wherever possible. Wherever an LLM does translation, it is noted in the user interface, as you also quoted from my methodology.

Thanks again, and if you have any direct feedback or changes you'd like to see, I would love to hear it.

[yreg]

The design is good. It is unoriginal but not every project needs to use an original design.

[Igrom]

serious_angel is not contending with you that the design is bad, or that it is bad because it is unoriginal. In fact, they are not even specifically calling out the design.

They have noticed the design, recognized it as the output of an LLM, then proceeded to discover that an LLM was involved in much of the creation of the project. This is an academic project. Whatever the pedigree of the researcher is, this implies to the grandparent that the final result of the work may be amateurish or worse, to an extent generated. Therefore, he's concerned that it puts the legitimacy of the research outcomes (e.g. completeness, contents of letters, classification, maybe even hallucinations in the thesis proper).

Preemptive arguments:

1. "The author's a researcher, not a programmer; therefore it's fine to use an LLM. It is preposterous to ask each researcher to learn web development to publish their research." You are right, but given the amount of vibe-coded websites we see, and them all having the default (Astro?) style, the grandparent all the same has the right to associate that style with untrustworthy crap. I'm not saying that this academic website is necessarily crap. However, I think it's useful for the grandparent to share their sentiment, because the researcher might not know.

2. "A lot of pages have links to sources; you could verify the legitimacy yourself". perhaps, but doubting the veracity of research is a bad first impression, isn't it?

It's a bit sad, because the website is non-trivial, and would have taken quite a bit of effort without an LLM. But it is difficult to separate webdev enablement with the rest of the LLM baggage.

[craig_vg]

Thanks for the feedback on this. I'll note that I am not an academic nor a researcher. I'm a hobbyist who wanted to bring together data from different letters and read them for myself. I don't aspire to be a researcher nor publish academic work.

The primary goal is to provide access to these letters to non-academics who would like to read what Romans were writing in language they can understand.

I take all the points about research outcomes and the quality of the data itself. That is going to be an ongoing process to continue to improve it alongside LLMs. I have a day job, and this is just a side project, but where it can provide value, I want to lean into that side of things.