AI has assisted with draft site text, interface translations, and image specifications. These materials still require human editorial review; public availability does not mean a qualified reviewer has approved them. AI is not an authority or a substitute for source checking. No public AI assistant is active.
Is an AI assistant active?
No public AI assistant or AI-generated practice tool is currently active.
The repository contains configuration placeholders for a future server-side model integration, but no model requests are wired into public routes.
How has AI been used for draft content?
AI assistance has been used to prepare and revise English draft copy, interface translation strings, and image specifications. The educational drafts are publicly readable, but this is not a claim of qualified teacher, clinician, or native-language review.
The individual production model, prompt version, generation history, and human sign-off are not yet recorded consistently for every article. That provenance tracking remains an editorial requirement before reviewed publication.
What review does AI-assisted content require?
A human editor must verify facts, safety language, references, translations, and cultural context before publication.
- Do not fabricate citations, credentials, Sanskrit meanings, or historical claims.
- Keep a record of substantial AI assistance in the editorial workflow.
- Do not publish machine translations as reviewed local-language content.
- Keep core site content useful if an AI provider is unavailable.
How is visitor information handled?
No AI chat transcript collection is currently implemented.
If AI interaction is introduced, the project must document retention, deletion, and data-use practices before collecting conversation content.