> It's unethical (if not outright fraudulent) to publish LLM work as if it were your own.

I disagree on that. It's really a gray area.

If it's some lazy vibecoded shit, I think what you say totally applies.

If the human did the thinking, gave the agent detailed instructions, and/or carefully reviewed the output, then I don't think it's so clear cut.

And full disclosure, I'm reacting more to copilot here, which lists itself as the author and you as the co-author. I'm not giving credit to the machine, like I'm some appendage to it (which is totally what the powers-that-be want me to become).

> Claude setting itself as coauthor is a good way to address this problem, and it doing so by default is a very good thing.

I do agree that's a sensible default.

I think it depends a lot if you reviewed it as carefully as you would your own code.

Of course most people don’t do that

Should Word set itself as my coauthor when it autocompletes some sentences for me? If I use Claude/Word to write something, then I am the only author, since Claude/Word is not a person, and Claude/Word did nothing without my direction. It's not unethical to not disclose the tools I use to produce my work. They're just tools, smdh.