But AI is not plagiarism.
It's text written by someone else while the user pretends he wrote it by himself. That's plagiarism by definition.
The "AI" tool itself is highly debatable too: I've seen many accusations of them using unlicensed input data to train it.
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?
Now consider the same user who pays someone to draw for him, and pretends he did it by himself.
Did you know that websites like BPIP, Nintastic, ImgTalk, etc all use plagiarised code? It's legal in the form of "packages", so why shouldn't AI content be legal as well?
The Open Source licenses allow this use, and (usually) allows you to make changes as long as you credit the original writers. By crediting them it's not plagiarism.
Because the forum don't want to lose more traffic
If by "the forum" you mean theymos, I don't think he cares about the amount of traffic. If anything, low-quality traffic isn't worth much.
The original author is not the poster. Its ChatGPT. If you credit ChatGPT for the post, then its not plagiarism.
It's probably still plagiarism, but from ChatGPT. They take bits and pieces of other people's work without crediting anyone.
If they are newbies, forum members will not merit these posts if there is credit to ChatGPT, AI.
Some even earn Merit, but I'm much more disappointed by the number of people responding to them. Even on the tech board: what's the point of responding to a made-up problem?