But AI is not plagiarism.
I disagree. Let's look at the
definition:
an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author
The original author is not the poster. Its ChatGPT. If you credit chat GPT for the post, then its not plagiarism. AI posters are misrepresenting their actual abilities, and most of the time the output is perfunctory garbage that doesn't add anything to the conversation (which is why there is a lot of overlap between spam and AI text).
Consider a user who watches a bitcoin story and has a great political cartoon idea. He/She can't draw worth shit, so he describes the idea to AI. He then posts the image here and starts a passionate discussion about a novel idea. Why is that punishable?
I don't care if people post AI generated images (unless they are extremely bad to the point of being offensive). I doubt most other people care either. It would be tacky for the person posting the image to say "I made this using my own brain," or imply something similar.
Let's say for instance someone designing a series of Bitcoin collectibles uses AI-generated images to "showcase their work." Its not their work at all -- it doesn't even exist. This would not be a particularly trust-inspiring act. Its all about the context in which AI-generated material is being used. If its being used to meet shitpost quotas, I'm against it.