While I have a distaste for most things AI-generated, the proposition that "AI-assisted [writing, art, ...] is its own medium" is probably something I can accept, in that I think it's just factually correct. However, that doesn't make it more palatable, or something that I think should be embraced in day-to-day life.

I don't think this author and I will ever agree on the extent to which it's acceptable to use AI to generate parts of a creative work, but let me propose a middle ground that hopefully a lot of us can accept: direct use of AI in a creative capacity must be disclosed. To be clear I'm talking about using the AI to generate literal text for an essay or artistic assets, and not simply to give feedback or ideas (which I don't fully condone either, but that's not the middle ground I'm proposing). Since this author detailed exactly how he used the AI for this article, let's acknowledge that had he given that same work to a human underling, I think almost everyone would conclude that the other person should be credited as a coauthor. I think that's a reasonable standard: if the AI is doing creative work that a human would be expected to be credited for, then its use should similarly be disclosed.

The author said he's proud to have used the AI to assist his writing. I appreciate that candor, so I'm saying let's just make it official and make disclosure the rule going forward. If using the AI is fine, then what's wrong with acknowledging that you used it?

Let's cover a few potential objections.

1) "It's unenforceable." But I'm primarily talking about cultural norms, not enforcement. There are also other forms of "academic dishonesty" (for lack of a better term) that are difficult to detect, but that doesn't mean society just embraces them.

2) "I'm not ashamed of using AI, but I have a right to privacy." I value your right to privacy, but we're talking about something you attached your name to and put out into the public. Your published work does not have its own right to privacy.