docs: a footer note on building with AI

The point is not a disclaimer, it is the argument: the tool is not the measure
of a project. Code nobody understands is bad code whoever typed it, and code
whose every decision can be explained is good code by the same standard.

Placed next to a link to history/ on purpose. That directory is where the
claim can be checked -- the bugs are written up in full, including the wrong
hypotheses and the measurements that killed them. An explanation you can
follow is the evidence; a byline is not.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01VQ7Qx8E1q1M1bbCq8QLHS2

docs/Website/docs.html

@@ -55,6 +55,16 @@
       Built by, and for, people of every orientation and gender identity.
       The flag stays up all year.
     </span>
+    <span class="note" id="ai-note">
+      <b>On AI.</b>
+      Parts of SchOS were written with AI assistance, and that is not the measure
+      of anything. A project is good when the people building it understand what
+      was built, and bad when nobody does — whoever, or whatever, typed it. Vibe
+      your way through and you get something no one can fix. Stay in the loop and
+      you get a system you can explain line by line. The bug writeups in
+      <a href="?doc=history/kernel.md">history/</a> are where that gets
+      checked, including the wrong turns.
+    </span>
   </div>
 </footer>