Yes it’s true today, depending on what is your writing is the foundation of.

It doesn’t matter that my writing is more considered, more accurate and of a higher quality when my coworkers are all openly using AI to perform five times the work I am and producing outcomes that are “good enough” because good enough is quite enough for a larger majority than many likely realise.

It's not true at all. Much like the claims that you have to use LLMs to keep up in programming: if that is true then you weren't a good programmer (or writer in this case) to begin with.

yeah, this is just critihype

That is absolutely wrong. Regardless of whether you were or not good to begin with, an LLM assistant will still accelerate a lot of repetitive tasks for you. Repetitive is repetitive, no matter if you’re John Carmack or the guy sitting in the booth next to you in the paper company. And anyway in a few years none of it will matter because programming without assistance will be a vintage thing of the past (like perforated cards).

It’s the same with writing. If you find yourself writing a boring introduction section to a paper with a bunch of meaningless blabla, then why wouldn’t you use AI for that? There is simply no good reason, especially when you see mediocre researchers publishing at three times your rate and getting promoted over you.