AI Policy:
The Standard of Intent

01. The Principle of Intent

In a landscape of infinite output, the only irreplaceable contribution is Authorial Intent. Intent is the fingerprint left on work: the specific reasons why something exists, the decisions made, and the context of its creation.

At klaweht.com, the standard is clear: I underwrite every line. Whether a post is handwritten, drafted with an AI assistant, or refined through several tools, the intent is mine. I decide what belongs here, I edit the result, and I take responsibility for the claims.

02. AI as a Working Tool

I use AI systems as working tools: to organize notes, test arguments, summarize source material, draft alternatives, inspect code, and sharpen structure. The specific model changes over time; the standard does not.

AI can weaken the contract between author and reader when it becomes a shortcut for publishing unexamined output. To prevent that, I follow these rules:

• / No Filler: Every paragraph must have a reason for existing. If I can't explain why it belongs, it gets cut.
• / Claim Checking: Technical claims, links, code, and operational details are reviewed before publication. I do not ship output I have not read, edited, and accepted.
• / Contextual Disclosure: Posts involving significant AI assistance are marked with a disclosure explaining how the tools were used.

03. Review and Disclosure

Work presented without extra context should be read as my own considered position: reviewed, edited, and ready for serious engagement.

If a post is exploratory, provisional, or relies heavily on AI-assisted synthesis, I will say so. The goal is simple: you should know when AI helped, what it helped with, and who is responsible for the final judgment.