I too arbitrarily hate formats that are easy to use and have existed long enough that all patents on them should be expired.

There's a 0% chance that they have a reliable baseline for this.

Like reasonable accommodations as allowed by the Americans with Disabilities ACT.
There are numerous videos without adequate accessibility features enabled for those with difficulties seeing or hearing that can be enjoyed better by retrieving the video and running it through other tools.

Younger people discussing things they find relevant doesn't result in voting Republican when the time comes. The government approved grooming by Christianity is fine though.

Pssh, if there were an obligation to promote the general welfare the founding fathers should have put it in the preamble of the Constitution.

Clairvoyance and prescience aren't real.

And don't forget Hannibal's catchphrase "I love it when a Plan 9 comes together."

In the same way, Wordle is a knock-off of Mastermind. Part of the joy of not being able to copyright the rules to games.

Right, and there's a word for providing material that "can even be corroborated between multiple sources" without providing citation for those multiple sources. To quote myself where I addressed the scenario "As is, this appears to be insignificantly different from citing Google, Wikipedia, or Pinterest for works presented by those services."

That falls into true some of the time, and false some of the time category. Paraphrasing and citing the paraphrasing tool, rather than the works being paraphrased, is still plagiarism.

correct, other than the application part

Show me one AI that people are citing that's trained only on material that's out of copyright like Shakespeare and I'll accept I was wrong. One is enough.

Nearly right, AI doesn't learn in the same manner as humans. In academia it's important to credit the originators of derivative works of copyrighted and material no longer under copyright alike so that peer review can be done. These fail to do so. Using AI as a black box that fails to indicate where the ideas came should be discouraged. Holding AI citations to the same minimal standards as a cited person is not a contradiction.

Any AI that produces output without sufficiently crediting the authors of the inputs it trained on is correctly regarded as an application that just speeds up plagiarism. If there're any that correctly attribute the works produced I see nothing wrong with it, as they can then be peer reviewed. As is, this appears to be insignificantly different from citing Google, Wikipedia, or Pinterest for works presented by those services.

220 5 1

That's one way to make a product unsuitable for a work environment.

Speculation

This makes the false assumption that the training set isn't "the typical responses made by novices hoping to increase their stackoverflow social-media scores."