I don't think authors need to credit AI in their written works, but I do think this is the double-edged sword of claiming partly AI-generated content as your ow

I don't think authors need to credit AI in their written works, but I do think this is the double-edged sword of claiming partly AI-generated content as your own (for reference, the WGA recently won the right to claim AI-inspired and partially AI-created work as a human writer's own work without having to credit the AI). I think it's fair for a scientific human author to take full credit for papers that are partially written by AI, but any logical errors and hallucinations inserted by AI should also be attributed to the human author. It's the human author's responsibility to ensure the final written work is accurate. Edit: for further context, I have published a few scientific papers in recent years, and using AI is not all that different from a senior author relying on junior authors. Early on in my career, I created the first draft of most papers, and my more senior co-authors would verify my work and create direct edits or suggestions for me to revise the draft. The final paper was created after a few rounds of this cycle.