Of course I am going to ask. I don't want to read something "written" by someone who is terrible at writing, AI or human. The tedious "its not x, it's y", the sweeping generalizations, the questionable abstractions. the choppy sentences. It sucks!

> The disclosure conversation—”I used AI for this”—is starting to sound like a cook announcing that the kitchen has an oven.

Think OP misses the point of that disclosure, It's more like the cook saying "I ordered out", Ie, they had nothing or very little to do with the output. Which is a good disclosure, now if an employee does own the output, then there's no or little need for the disclosure because for all intents and purposes it's content they've approved as their own.

This is also not a new phenomena, if you had a senior (whatever) with 15 years of experience and you asked for some thing, and they in turn delegated it to their intern they would either review and own the output from the intern or if it was something that could be passed on with only cursory review likely qualify that it came from said intern, which both gives credit, gives blame, but also tempers the consumption such that the recipient knows it's not directly a product of the senior (whatever) with 15 years of experience.

the only difference is now even the interns have interns everyone can delegate any task.

These days there is a higher chance that everything we read was somehow written with or by AI. The boundaries cannot be clearly defined. As a mentor at a leading university, I and most other lecturers assume that what students present was done with heavy AI assistance. The questions we now ask are: 1. How did you use AI? 2. What did you learn from the use of AI in the process? 3. How will you use AI better in the future? 4. How will you prove that you are necessary in the loop, and better than just AI?

I assume AI wrote it and might wonder if a human contributed.