There’s no reason to trust a human any more than an LLM for this. Humans are not 100% accurate and very capable of making crucial factual errors in documentation. Ask me how I know.
Of course Humans can make errors when translating that to English. But if you’ve read any amount of Claudish it should be obvious that interpolating the code to documentation with an LLM typically produces a significantly worse result in almost every way. Except for superficially “sounding” correct.
Plus, if a human puts the effort into writing something, that signals to me that it's worth something, because human time is much more scarce than LLM time.
Within the first couple of paragraphs and bullets it made a completely false claim that is the opposite of how the language operates, something any person that knows the essentials of it would know. Language Y was listed in the front page as an inspiration (and I don't doubt them) but clearly they either did not read the docs the LLM wrote or did not use the language for long enough to know it has zero structural typing
If you believe you are making something worth other people's time, you should ALSO believe you are making something worthy of your own time.
would you fly in an airplane if the software was written mostly by Claude?
If an engineer who mostly used Claude left the company, can his replacement understand his mental model, given that he himself doesn't ?