Right GPT chat isn't a good source, and is particularly a bad reference because it doesn't even provide its own references with its answers. The issue is that people can use GPT chat or similar tools to morph their sentences to be "novel". The problem will get worse with time and they will sound more human. New writing software could be a tool to help people to construe something useful, and if it's used for that purpose, then it needs to be documented, and yeah the article does cover all of those bases and that makes sense.

However there is an issue- does an AI program itself make deductions and conclusions based on what data it receives, and do those deductions contribute meaningfully to the whole project? It's not just a calculation, it's about stringing complex techniques or coming up with a formula, for example a type of chemotherapy? I'd like to know if the computer/AI was doing most of the heavy lifting for coming up with a specific treatment vs an author. Because if it isn't clear who is doing what in a complicated process like that it just makes things less clear if something went wrong. Right, I get the intent of all of it but knowing when the AI is put to good use is, well pretty useful.