That's very kind of you to say!

Great point. I should have emphasized that more (perhaps I'll edit it). I don't know the specialist lit well enough on my own. But that piece made so much sense when you said it - stating what should be obvious but isn't - that it really "clicked" for me.

I think that's a fair point. I'm thinking more of folks who would automatically treat use of gen AI tools as de facto plagiarism.

That way of thinking about authorship w/ref to AI oversimplifies things and engenders misplaced polemics about the use of AI

That was of thinking about authorship w/ref to scripture or other ancient texts renders invisible the collaborative agency of enslaved / low class scribes.

You're right that the parallel isn't exact, but the comparison importantly complicates how we conceive of authorship. The key thing for me is to get away from the solitary, authoritative "author"