Back to the core issue - apparently few people took a long enough look at the article to notice it was co-written by AI; i.e. there were human editors in the loop. Sure, the format is a bit off-putting, but that's IMO mostly because nobody can be arsed to write like that, even if their own thesis supervisor told them they should, as proper structuring makes it easier for the reader to understand a complex topic.

Anyway, point is, I personally have no issue with people using AI to improve their texts - LLMs already are better at writing than most people anyway. Just as long as the saved effort is put into ensuring the content itself is valuable and communicated well.

It's the Internet - we never cared about such things here. Attribution and linking, yes. "Copyright" and "authorship of original works" - are you sure you're not a legacy publisher desperate to insert itself into the free exchange of knowledge and put up a toll gate? :).

I'm joking, but only a little. Unless you actually believe LLMs sin against the Church of Intellectual Property with every token they produce, this complaint feels out of place in context of a blog post summarizing research work done in the open. There are situations in which one could try to argue LLMs violate rights of some authors, but this isn't one of such situations.