Taking credit for something you didn't do, whether it was done by another person or by an LLM, is dishonest and unethical. Prompting an LLM to create something is obviously not the same thing as creating it, and I feel this article is trying to normalize tacit plagiarism. In most contexts I'm aware of where assigning credit actually matters, human authorship and LLM authorship are very much distinguished, and failing to "credit the LLM" in some cases can even have legal consequences.

(You don't have to mention LLMs every time you use them because sometimes the credit really doesn't matter.)

> But for the first reason, I’d challenge the notion of sharing credit with a tool, let alone feeling like a cheat for using one.

That's the main reason LLMs aren't "just a tool."

> Credit and accountability are two sides of the same coin. A tool can only take as much credit as it can be held accountable for, so crediting it inadvertently dilutes your own accountability for the work.

Huh? No, credit and accountability are pretty orthogonal. I use tons of open-source tools, and everyone agrees that the respective authors get credit for what they made, but only I am accountable for my use of them. In fact, all open-source licenses spell this out explicitly.