The essay was prepared from an extensive outline mostly generated by me.

The prose is GPT's but most of the arguments are mine. 

It's not the case that the content is pure unedited GPT work. I did posit many of the actual arguments here. GPT was mostly used to turn my nested list of bullet points into prose.

I strongly downvoted for much the same reason. I'm not quite sure what to think about edited and fully endorsed posts largely written with some large language model.

On the whole, I'd much prefer to see posts written by people who are communicating their beliefs and experiences in their own words. It's not just to do with AI: I'd also prefer not to read posts largely written by a public relations firm or similar. The trouble is that in either case it would be very easy to deceive me into upvoting instead, by just lying by omission about the source.