Talk:Kern 82

Generated by AI category

I designed the Kern 82 program myself; the only part where AI assisted was in the creation of the Haskell compiler. While I did previously use AI to generate an example of a quine program, and the text in the "Language Overview" section was written by me but translated via AI, I have since removed or replaced both of those elements. User:Dragoneater67, Could you explain why the "Generated by AI" category continues to be applied, given that there is no longer any AI-generated content on the Esolang Wiki page? Brian80053 (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

the text on the page seems to be ai generated --dragoneater67 [talk|contribs] 10:33, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Since I am not fluent in English, I typically draft my content in Korean, translate it using Google Translate, and then review the result. As a result, there may be occasional errors or awkward phrasings in the text. Although the article might appear to have been generated by AI, it was not. Could you please provide specific evidence—pointing to exact sentences or sections—that suggests the content was AI-generated? A subjective impression regarding the writing style does not seem like sufficient evidence to justify categorizing it as such. Brian80053 (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

alrighty, firstly, this is:

Within its alternate-history setting, the language is primarily used in fields requiring high reliability, such as industrial control, embedded systems, and systems programming. [...] While primarily suited for procedural programming, it also supports some object-oriented programming techniques. It features variables, arrays, functions, procedures, strings, and strict type checking; its syntax is influenced by C, Pascal, and "Green"—a language considered a precursor to Ada. [...] The language explicitly treats various issues as errors—including overflows, division by zero, and out-of-bounds access.

overuse of the rule of three, which is usually a sign of ai writing, secondly, em-dashes are being overused too:

While primarily suited for procedural programming, it also supports some object-oriented programming techniques. It features variables, arrays, functions, procedures, strings, and strict type checking; its syntax is influenced by C, Pascal, and "Green"—a language considered a precursor to Ada. [...] The language explicitly treats various issues as errors—including overflows, division by zero, and out-of-bounds access. It also enforces strict type separation (preventing the mixing of distinct types, even if they share the same underlying base type) and flags errors for the use of pointers use-after-free errors and double-free errors.

thirdly, there is this one instance of a glue word being used where it could have been omitted:

Kern 82 utilizes keywords derived from both German and English. While primarily suited for procedural programming, it also supports some object-oriented programming techniques.

and lastly, (this one is not a common ai writing sign, i just noticed that many ai generated pages share it) there is comparison to "the others":

Unlike typical esoteric programming languages, Kern 82 is designed to be a language that could plausibly have existed within its alternate-history context.

i hope that this evidence is sufficient --dragoneater67 [talk|contribs] 11:39, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

also, google translate now uses gemini under the hood, which may explain the ai writing signs being present --dragoneater67 [talk|contribs] 11:50, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I wrote the original text in Korean, and it was translated into English using Google Translate. While it is true that "Gemini" was added to Google Translate, this is not a mandatory requirement but an optional feature that can be modified. The three-item lists, contrasts, and comparisons you pointed out were already present in my Korean original. So, I would like to ask two questions.

First, What kind of evidence would help you reconsider your assessment? Would showing the original Korean text be helpful? While it is true that the stylistic characteristics I mentioned frequently appear in AI-generated text, they can also appear in text written by humans, so I am unsure how to prove that I wrote this myself.

Second, How exactly is the "Generated by AI" category supposed to be applied? For example, would translating human-written text using machine translation be considered AI-generated? If generative AI was incorporated into the machine translation, would that also be considered AI-generated? I couldn't find a clear guideline on this, so I'm concerned about applying the category based only on how the writing sounds.

I understand why you might have concerns about the article, and I don't mind discussing them. However, I don't think similarities in writing style alone are enough to conclude that the article was generated by AI.Brian80053 (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

providing korean original would not change much, since according to you, it has the same ai writing signs, the signs i pointed out appear much more frequently in ai generated text than human written text, which is why they are relied upon in the first place, the text of Category:Generated by AI answers your second question (the answer is that it applies to this page, since machine translation still counts as ai writing) --dragoneater67 [talk|contribs] 13:47, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

the alternate history section is offtopic and should be removed

this wiki is for documenting esolangs, not althistory --dragoneater67 [talk|contribs] 08:37, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Is the language esoteric?

Imho, German keywords do not make a language esoteric. There are "normal" languages with Russian keywords, they are by no means esoteric, they are just of limited use. --Blashyrkh (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2026 (UTC)