With the 5DS and 5DS R the AA filter vs no AA filter question is as hot again as when the D800/D800E was released. I think it's interesting. I use AA-filtered cameras in the 135 range, and AA-filter-less cameras in MFD obviously. It should be said that a microlens-free sensor like my 50 megapixel Kodak with very sharp tech lenses will alias a bit more than a modern microlens-equipped sensor with fuzzier lenses.
Anyway, my taste has turned more towards the AA-filtered look the more I've worked with raw conversion on the software level. I've got to see how much that we actually make up during demosaicing. We make up a lot with AA-filtered sensors too otherwise we would just lose too much resolution, but there's considerably less problems. Afaik AA-filters today are not just random blurrers but carefully crafted filters designed to blur as little as possible while removing as much aliasing as possible, I guess that design is what makes them reversible with an extra layer like done with the D800E and now 5DS R.
Just knowing that details are not as correctly rendered as they could be just for 1-2% resolution gain does not feel right. On the other hand, when I pixel peep my tech cam lenses when shot at f/11 with my 6um pixels there I do get that sharpness rush I think everyone get. I doesn't help that I know that that sharpness does me no good when I print or scale, it's still a special kind of satisfaction. So I won't blame anyone that trades that satisfaction for some aliasing artifacts, but I think it's quite easily demonstrated that it's not about real image quality in the final output, but rather the opposite.
My taste towards AA-filtered look has grown even stronger lately when I've started to make prints with an own printer, as I've seen even less reasons to have that pixel peep sharpness when I scale for printing, rather the opposite, in the rare event of having to scale up an aliased image will just make it look "digital". Having a sharper pixel peep could have a value if you would publish the image on a medium where the square pixels in the image map exactly to square pixels in the output medium, but that is never the case. There's always scaling to match, and then aliasing does you no good.
It is an interesting question if removing the AA filter has a global effect, ie if you scale down the image so there's no resolution advantage, would you still see a difference (assuming we don't have visible moire in the subject). I've got the sense that there is a belief that there is indeed a "global advantage" in image quality of not having an AA filter, but I'm almost 100% positive that it's a myth (the only reason I would see is that AA filter would somehow disturb the efficiency of the color filters, but I haven't heard or read that there would be such a problem). I haven't done A/B testing though, there are not many cameras out there that allow that.
About that sharpening creates artificial detail, it depends on how you see it. The bayer+demosaicing process is softening in itself, and diffraction too. Counteracting those effects I would not say creates artificial details, ie you don't create any details that are not there you just enhance contrast. Aliasing creates false details for real though, in the form of small false colors and patterns around small details, which result in moire if the small details have a repeating pattern.
In landscape images moire occurs rarely, but false colors around small details occurs often. However with a 50 megapixel camera or so those details are so small so they generally become invisible in most publishing forms, and even if they are visible they're so tiny that the eye don't register that the color is wrong. So in practice it's certainly not a big issue for a landscape photographer like me. But I also know that the sligthly less sharp AA-filtered image would also not result in meaningful loss in sharpness, and then it for me feels better to rather trade (reasonably) accurate details for a visually reversible softening.
To me being without AA-filter on my MF camera is not a feature, but rather "a minor bug" I as a landscape photographer can live with.