The website looked as any LLM ("AI") generated one, usually via Claude, considering the design that model frequently uses.

And it is (300,755++ lines from Claude): https://github.com/CraigVG/roman-letters-network

Here, I am sorry, but I just cannot consider it serious nor accountable, since I just cannot trust its data.

If all the information there is valid and verified, every single letter and the authors' word after the LLM's processing, then the "AI" may be dimmed.

Yet, I don't believe so, knowing how unlimitedly every subjective word may change contexts, and using objectified and limited LLM for it?

There's `?scholarly=true` GET parameter mentioned in the `:/CLAUDE.md`, but a quick check of its behavior didn't result in any change.

Regardless, the idea and overall intention that highlights the impact and importance of history, and presents connections between infinitely unique and miraculous people around the infinite world... where every single word carries a life moment... is ineffably magnificent...

Thank you, Craig Vander Galien, for the idea and love in history!

---

    > Modern English translations were produced using Claude (Anthropic), working from either the Latin/Greek original or an existing 19th-century English version. Translation work was guided by two internal documents: a translation guide covering late antique epistolary conventions, rhetorical register, and how to handle common formulaic phrases; and a modern voice guide specifying tone, vocabulary level, and how to avoid archaism while remaining faithful to the original.
    > 
    > AI-generated translations are clearly marked in the interface. They are provided for accessibility and research convenience, not as authoritative scholarly translations. The original Latin or Greek is preserved alongside every translation, and 19th-century English versions are shown where available. Corrections from domain experts are welcome.
    > 
    > Source: https://romanletters.org/about/

Roman Letters