[retsibsi]

I'm with you on honesty, and I've certainly seen people tacitly trying to pass off AI outputs as human written. But I think we've reached a point where, in lots of contexts, we can't reasonably assume human authorship by default any more. (We can reasonably want it and push for it! I just mean we can't literally expect it.) So even when we would prefer openness, I think 'lying by omission' is too harsh a characterisation for people who choose not to declare AI authorship but don't actively try to cover it up.

[peteforde]

The replies to my comment kind of say everything that needs to be said about what I actually said; people can't even put aside their overt hostility to all things AI long enough to acknowledge that it makes no [good] sense to draw specific attention to LLM usage.

Ironically, it's precisely because of those folks that nobody with half a brain would acknowledge that they use LLMs to bring some or all of their ideas to life.

You can't demand that all people should disclose their bellybutton rings AND openly salivate for cancelling people with bellybutton rings.