I suspect the taboo is due to the fear is that there will be economic pressures on publishers to do away with human editors entirely in the near future, despite human editors providing value distinct from that of an AI editor. If nothing else, there’s more variance in the perspective of human editors, which seems important.

Now, obviously many writers don't have the privilege of working with high quality human editors, so an AI editor is better than nothing. And even using both an AI and human editor in tandem seems legitimate—how could that hurt?

I think instead of stigmatizing AI for creative uses across the board, creatives should instead try to articulate models where AI is used to empower and augment creatives (both creatively and economically) rather than replace them. If the debate is taboo vs. replacement, I fear replacement will win out eventually.