"rejects honest contributors while rewarding anyone willing to conceal their tools" is exactly the gaming that blanket bans lead to.

A common worry cited about publishing a lot of AI generated writing is that proliferation of it on the open internet makes it available to be used in future AI model training data. The concern is that recursive training will cause some kind of regression-to-the-mean.

I'm not sure it is strictly true. ML training approaches often use augmentation to enrich the data and get better results. In computer vision, for example, rotating or skewing the same image gives more training examples and leads to better outcomes.

I also agree with another main point you make. You are the one who decided to write the article, you argued the points and guided the tone. AI was just the assistant. The blog post might be AI generated, but AI of itself has no agency. The very word "agentic" is a misnomer in that sense.

<Facetious/> Now, given you subscribe to the Sapolsky idea in "Determined" that there is no free will, it then follows that you didn't have any true agency here either. So who really directed the blog post to be written?

I'm poking fun, but in all seriousness I don't think the answer to that question really matters. You made good points, you used the AI to clear it up and add structure to the argument and correct all the grammar, and the outcome is the product of the human+AI cyborg chimera that we are inevitably becoming.