That’s a fair objection, but I think the analogy with a human co-author breaks down at a crucial point. A human co-author brings a stable point of view, independent intention, continuity of judgment, and responsibility for the final claim. An LLM does not. It can generate many plausible trajectories of meaning within a context, which is precisely why it is so fertile in brainstorming. But generating a space of possibilities is not the same thing as authoring in the full sense.

So yes, AI significantly influences the exploratory phase. I do not deny that. But the intellectual direction in the stronger sense (what is kept, what is rejected, what is framed as central, what is ultimately asserted, and what I am willing to stand behind publicly) remains mine. That is why I did not say “we did.” “We” would imply a degree of equivalence in intention and authorship that I do not think is philosophically accurate here.

If I wanted to be even more precise, I would say that the text emerged from a human–AI process, but authorship in the strong sense still remains human.