It's definitely context-dependent; it actually took me a minute to come up with a plausible example where I didn't immediately think of a counterexample of why it was a perfectly valid usage, lol.

Even as a grammar weirdo I'm not wholesale against dropping objects from verbs, especially when the object is strongly implied, or the original object becomes the new subject, like in "the heat melted the ice" > "the ice melted". But if you're writing for precision (and I'm a technical writer, so when I'm on the clock I certainly I am :P) there are times where those constructions can obscure useful details, even if they're not grammatically necessary. And there are other examples that I'd struggle to defend in any context, and frankly just give me the ick.

I was trying not to single out any actual sources I've seen, but here's one I saw the other day that made me irrationally mad, and that I think goes beyond the organic changes you mentioned:

> Talking also costs.

It costs? Costs what? Five dollars a word??

The rest of the passage made it obvious that the cost in question had to do with tokens (blatant LLMisms? in a blog post about LLMs? it's more likely than you think) (also ironic considering TFA's conclusion about this writing style being a way to reduce token usage), and maybe one day this will become a perfectly accepted usage and I'll be the old fogie moaning about how it should really say "has a cost" or whatever. But fuck, I hate it, and not just because it's an obvious tell that humans aren't steering the ship.