More minor edits

Author: rnk

llvm/docs/AIToolPolicy.md

@@ -9,20 +9,18 @@ fully accountable for their contributions.**
   treated as a suggestion, not as final code or text. It is your responsibility
   to review, test, and understand everything you submit. Submitting unverified or
   low-quality machine-generated content (sometimes called "[AI
-  slop](https://simonwillison.net/2024/May/8/slop/)") creates an
-  unfair review burden on the community and is not an acceptable contribution.
-  Contributors should review and understand their own submissions before asking
-  the community to review their code.
+  slop][ai-slop]") creates an unfair review burden on the community and is not
+  an acceptable contribution. Contributors should review and understand their own
+  submissions before asking the community to review their code.
 
 * **Start with small contributions:** Open source communities operate on trust
-  and reputation. Reviewing large contributions is expensive. AI tools have a
-  tendency to generate large contributions that are expensive to review. We
-  encourage new contributors to keep their first contributions small until they
-  build personal expertise and maintainer trust before taking on larger
-  changes.
+  and reputation. Reviewing large contributions is expensive, and AI tools tend
+  to generate large contributions. We encourage new contributors to keep their
+  first contributions small until they build personal expertise and maintainer
+  trust before taking on larger changes.
 
 * **Be transparent about your use of AI.** When a contribution has been
-  significantly assisted by an AI tool, we encourage you to note this in your
+  significantly generated by an AI tool, we encourage you to note this in your
   pull request description, commit message, or wherever authorship is normally
   indicated for the work. For instance, use a commit message trailer like
   Assisted-by: <name of code assistant>. This transparency helps the community
@@ -40,6 +38,8 @@ fully accountable for their contributions.**
   or not. The same principle of ownership applies to review comment
   contributions as it does to code contributions.
 
+[ai-slop]: https://simonwillison.net/2024/May/8/slop/
+
 This policy extends beyond code contributions and includes, but is not limited
 to, the following kinds of contributions:
 
@@ -53,10 +53,10 @@ to, the following kinds of contributions:
 
 Sending patches, PRs, RFCs, comments, etc to LLVM, is not free -- it takes a
 lot of maintainer time and energy to review those contributions! We see the act
-of sending low-quality unreviewed contributions to the LLVM project as
+of sending low-quality, un-self-reviewed contributions to the LLVM project as
 "extractive." It is an attempt to extract work from the LLVM project community
 in the form of review comments and mentorship, without the contributor putting
-in comensurate effort to make their work worth reviewing.
+in comensurate effort to make their contribution worth reviewing.
 
 Our **golden rule** is that a contribution should be worth more to the project
 than the time it takes to review it. These ideas are captured by this quote
@@ -122,11 +122,13 @@ just like any other offending contribution.
 Here are some examples of contributions that demonstrate how to apply
 the principles of this policy:
 
-- [This PR](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142869) contains a
-  proof from Alive2, which is a strong signal of value and correctness.
-- This [generated
-  documentation](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/searching-for-gsym-documentation/85185/2)
-  was reviewed for correctness by a human before being posted.
+- [This PR][alive-pr] contains a proof from Alive2, which is a strong signal of
+  value and correctness.
+- This [generated documentation][gsym-docs] was reviewed for correctness by a
+  human before being posted.
+
+[alive-pr]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142869
+[gsym-docs]: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/searching-for-gsym-documentation/85185/2
 
 ## References