If you are saying CNET will reap karmic desserts for this, I disagree. Whatever they "deserve," CNET will keep on going despite downsizing its staff in favor of writing bots.
Whereas I personally agree with your points about ownership, good writing, and the dangers of misinformation, these points of view are going to be obsoleted very fast by real-world developments.
Generally speaking, we live in a world that does not value quality. Most people on DU don't even write in complete sentences. (I get lazy too.)
I think smartphones and social media are the worst things to ever happen to the English language.
Personally, I'm not fazed by the idea of chatbots providing misinformation, and that is why I say I am "amused." I expect it. Their source is the internet. The totality of links found in any Google search contains wrong information.
I am also "amused" that the great CNET didn't bother to fact-check their AI-written articles. It's shameful.
If one does use AI assistance for writing or research, it is certainly up to the "author" to properly fact check, or suffer the consequences of putting one's name to incorrect information.
Is rampantly published misinformation dangerous? It certainly scares me. It's a brave new world.