I think there is a logical error here.

I can understand if someone wants to play against humans only, and also if others don't care. Just a matter of personal preference. But if you don't care about your opponent, then the logical consequence is for you to play both humans and computers - and NOT to leave computer accounts unmarked (as that would also rob others from their choice).

The problem comes in trusting your fellow humans. If a bot alone would play at 9-dan level, a bot + human plays at 1-dan level and the human alone plays at 20-kyu level, and if the human is in charge of a single account and secretly decides for himself which of the three options to use, your experience is going to be vastly different.

The obvious counter that no human would behave that way seems to invalidated by experience on the chess servers. I have no personal experience of playing chess online but from what I've read this behaviour has been a major problem there. It has been partly alleviated, I gather, by playing only blitz games (presumably the human operator then doesn't have time to use a machine as back-up) but that has the drawback of restricting longer games.

Why any human would behave that way is beyond me. I can understand, without condoning, the use of chess computers in tournaments to win prizes. I cannot understand doing that in tournaments to get a higher rating and bragging rights. Even less can I understand doing it online where you are hidden behind a nickname and you have no-one to brag to.

But there's enough cheating and immoral practices in go already (pros included) to prevent us from being sanguine about the increasing opportunities to misuse computers in either online or tournament play.