<p>I suppose until AI is considered to have to equal or at least more rights, the policy of Nature is likely what will stand for most reasonable organizations and hopefully stackexchange as well.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00191-1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00191-1</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>First, no LLM tool will be accepted as a credited author on a research
paper. That is because any attribution of authorship carries with it
accountability for the work, and AI tools cannot take such
responsibility.</p>
<p>Second, researchers using LLM tools should document this use in the
methods or acknowledgements sections. If a paper does not include
these sections, the introduction or another appropriate section can be
used to document the use of the LLM.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>They also make a point elsewhere which I strongly agree with:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00188-w" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00188-w</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Some publishers say that chatbot use should be documented in the
methods or acknowledgements sections — and that not doing so could be
considered <strong>plagiarism</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>edit to add:  It's unfortunate that I have to state the obvious, but this discussion should be about about LLMs and AI (<em>large</em> language models and artificial intelligence) and not shallow ML, like spell checkers and grammar checkers.</p>
