A couple small clarifications

Logically, I was using the LLM kind of like a glorified spell checker, so that is very good comparison. It's certainly very similar, and I've run the git documentation through command line spell checkers before. However, I found that spell checkers tend to turn up far more false-positives than an LLM does, making it much more labor intensive (and meaning that I got through a smaller subset of the Documentation and didn't repeat the exercise again later). Further, spell checkers (at least whatever one I used -- aspell? It's been long enough that I don't recall which one I ended up using) only tend to catch typos and spelling errors, while missing grammatical errors and awkward wordings/phrasings. LLMs catch and fix a wider variety of problems while having fewer false positives. (Though there were still quite a few, mostly because it was attempting to standardize American vs. British English spellings, and the manpages were so inconsistent on that point that I didn't want to subject the list to the noise of standardizing all of those.)