Please forgive me. I am NOT asserting anything, but I read this (your website), and had it not contained express claims of not being AI, I would have bet a substantial stake that it was AI. Perhaps because AI imitates good writing styles, I am not sure, but it matches many of the signals that for me, indicate AI

Edit: The above said, I am seeing in my own writing, artifacts from my interactions with AI. I am proof that, in some cases, AI can be contagious.

> That map makes it stupidly easy to tell a human from a machine. Someone who commits 50,000 lines in an afternoon did not type those by hand. Someone doing a couple hundred? Probably real. Simple.

Uh, this isn't true, though? I squash commits all the time locally before I publish them. There can be many reasons for that, but at the end of the day, I'm not obligated to share my messy revision history with the world. In the most extreme case, the first commit on one of my projects spans multiple years of development because it was forked from another project that's now pretty irrelevant to it. On the other hand, I've received pull requests that were a couple dozen lines and were definitely LLM-authored.

As sort of a counterpoint to the author's goals, IMO the community should extend the benefit of the doubt to writers and artists who explicitly say they don't use AI, because it's just really hard to prove that you're not using AI. Trying to force any kind of system will inevitably affect the quality of what you make, and the art community should not want that.