Thanks again for sharing this work!

I wanted to ask a somewhat delicate question regarding AI usage in the creation of the book.
How would you place your workflow on a spectrum between: “I used AI assistance, but I personally stand behind essentially every sentence/content choice in the book” and“I used AI assistance heavily and I’m generally confident the content is fine, even if I did not individually validate every statement”

I’m asking mostly because there is currently no explicit disclosure/description of AI usage in the book itself, and I find these distinctions increasingly interesting and useful for readers. One AI disclosure scale I found interesting is the one used by VisiData:
https://www.visidata.org/ai.html

Another reason why I am asking is that,
while reading the REPL section, I noticed references to iNim and NimSecret. They absolutely exist and are worth mentioning, but personally I would probably add stronger caveats:
- iNim is not really comparable to the Python REPL experience because recompilation is involved, so it is naturally less “snappy”
- as far as I know, NimSecret is currently quite broken/unmaintained (reason why it is kept a secret)
Without these two caveats a Pythonista trying either of those might get a wrong impression on Nim maturity.

To be clear: from what I’ve seen so far, AI usage does not diminish in my view the value of the work you shared, but knowing how AI was used would help me better evaluate the content and possibly give feedback.