The result will be poor-quality work that eventually becomes someone else’s problem.

I am sure they mean ‘the result of being lazy’, not ‘the result of following the golden rule for LLM usage’, but I think they could have expressed this more clearly.

There are two sides to very coin. I would prefer a positive statement about the benefits of doing the right things, rather than the harm of doing the wrong things. One can argue that they are equivalent and one can be derived or deduced from the other, but I think they produce different moods and attitudes to our fellows, despite the technical equivalence.

I don’t agree that no one should know if a contributor uses LLMs. I think there are associated risks to using LLMs and knowing they were used helps others to mitigate those risks.