None of these amount to AI making something. Before AI, it’s been humans who put the words on the paper, who put the strokes on the canvas, who put the notes on the sheet. Spell-checking and auto-completion have existed before AI and do not fundamentally change the process.

Since this project singles out AI (likely generative AI using machine learning), it seems evident to me that it rules out any involvement which does fundamentally change the process, i.e. what people otherwise do when creating.

(Yes, one could argue that e.g. word processing or printing have also fundamentally changed the process, and that is absolutely true, but each of those has changed the process differently than machine learning has, and clearly this website considers the changes made by AI undesirable in some ways, not the changes made by word processing or printing.)

Is it ok if I used a compiler and didn't write the assembly code by hand?

This is dishonest (and very common). You may certainly argue that genAI content should count as human-made, but it's pointless to just gesture at pre-genAI tools like autocomplete and insist that other people do the work of comparing/contrasting.

It's OK to use the term "human made" to mean "not the output of genAI". There's no "gotcha" to be scored here.