Using Tools Doesn’t Remove Responsibility

I use tools to help shape ideas, and I often bounce arguments around before they’re finished — whether with peers, colleagues, or an AI agent.

But there’s a clear difference between exploring an idea and presenting an argument as if it’s settled.

We’re already seeing the risk of blurring that line with AI hallucinations: systems confidently filling gaps, inventing references, or replacing missing facts with something that sounds right. Not because it’s true, but because it’s plausible.

I use polish. I use tools. But I read what I write. I check the logic. I try to understand the implications of the argument before I put my name to it.

The problem starts when polish substitutes for understanding.

If users rely on systems that smooth language, infer intent, and quietly replace uncertainty with plausibility, responsibility gets diluted. The argument looks coherent, but it hasn’t been properly stress-tested.

History suggests that serious mistakes rarely begin with obviously bad ideas. They begin with arguments that sounded reasonable enough not to be questioned.

At the end of the day, the person claiming authorship is responsible — for the content, and for the consequences. Tools don’t change that. Presentation doesn’t dilute it. Plausibility doesn’t excuse it