The generalised form of this, which we are rapidly discovering, is that AI breaks the social contract that used to exist between an author and a reader (of prose, code, anything).
https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0576#_llms_as_writers
> LLM-generated prose undermines a social contract of sorts: absent LLMs, it is presumed that of the reader and the writer, it is the writer that has undertaken the greater intellectual exertion. (That is, it is more work to write than to read!) For the reader, this is important: should they struggle with an idea, they can reasonably assume that the writer themselves understands it — and it is the least a reader can do to labor to make sense of it.
I think assuming a writer had your best intentions in mind has been unwise for quite some time. Murdoch built an empire exploiting this assumption.
And to be clear, it is reasonable to expect an author to invest more effort than a reader, because the work in question will reach many more readers and demand time and attention from all of them.
This principle was a part of basic netiquette back in the days of Usenet. I wish I could find the document (maybe it was a FAQ?) where I first saw it stated succinctly.