[smy20011]

> This post is 100% human-written. Claude was used for feedback and to assist with the linker symbol diagram. Cursor was used for feedback and to ensure examples were compilable.

Love this, I hope every blog have the same disclaimer about how AI is used.

[rootnod3]

If Claude gave feedback then it’s not really 100% human written is it?

[frakt0x90]

I'm pretty much hardline anti-AI and even I would say this is too far. If I read documentation or ask my wife to review something, those people did not write the final product. Perhaps it would be mentioned in a citation, like this person has.

[ronsor]

If you merely get feedback from a human, are they now a co-author?

[wahern]

If the feedback or involvement is substantive it used to be common to mention this, even if just in a prologue, epilogue, or footnote. You still see this is some academic writing and some journalism, where authors mention with whom they consulted. Books and other literature have tended to dissociate people from sources of knowledge, and the Internet furthered the dissociation. But honest writing should disclose all the sources of substantive claims, preferably traced back to primary sources. Legal writing and scientific papers are perhaps the last bastions where this is still done, or at least expected to be done, fairly rigorously, but the manner in which AI is used seems qualitatively more problematic for maintaining any kind of rigor in citation.

[mmastrac]

FWIW this post has both a "thanks" section for the human reviewers, and numerous footnotes linking to more authoritative sources.

[vitally3643]

It was written on a computer with a keyboard, so clearly it's 0% human written

[orthecreedence]

Show me the cave drawing version of this post or I will absolutely not be reading it.

[hresvelgr]

Most human editors are not given credit, why would it be any different for an LLM?

[khuey]

If you run spell check on a document is it no longer 100% human written?

[sophacles]

Yeah! It was typed into a computer and never even put on paper. How can you say it was written at all?

Further, can anything be "100% human writt even if it uses pen and paper? No of course not! Unless it is created by pricking a finger and put on human vellum, it's only partially human written.

Seriously though - if you want to do stupid purity test games, at least be properly pure about it. This half-assed nonsense is just trite.

[Sharlin]

Editors (as in, the human kind) are not co-writers either.