Communities often react to potentially AI‑assisted work by asking three questions: was AI used? was that use disclosed? can hidden use be detected? These questions place AI use at the center of accountability while overlooking a deeper issue—unowned judgment. Evaluations, claims, decisions, and creative directions can be shaped by AI without any human or institution prepared to stand behind them. We illustrate this argument with two cases: AI‑assisted peer review and concealed AI use in creative work. The first shows how contribution dissolution can weaken responsibility; the second shows how fear of losing credit can discourage honest disclosure. The cases expose the limits of disclosure rules and provenance records as responses to AI‑mediated collaboration. We propose three discussion directions: distinguishing the roles AI plays, identifying judgments that require clear human ownership, and creating conditions where AI involvement can be disclosed without a default penalty. The broader aim is to make AI‑shaped contributions discussable, creditable, contestable, and repairable.
Review