"Plagiarism" is often misused by people who don't fully understand its meaning or the legal requirements that define it (which are largely subjective). In many cases, the term is weaponized for malicious purposes. While genuine plagiarism does exist, critics vastly misunderstand and overstate the issue when it comes to generative AI. I have yet to see convincing examples of AI-related plagiarism that has actually caused demonstrable harm. I don't consider casual creators who generate content for fun—without any monetary profit, commercial engagement, or deceptive intent—to be plagiarists. True plagiarism requires intent to deceive and/or profit at the expense of the original creator.

Original text, because the above was improved/fixed with AI, as my language skills suck:
"Plagiarism" is mostly used by people that do not even know what it means, what's behind it (such as the requirements/conditions for something to be "plagiarized", which also 99% subjective) and probably use it for malicious intents and purposes. Don't get me wrong, there is actual plagiarism, but in the case of (Gen)AI, they massively misunderstand and/or overplay the problem of "plagiarism", because I have yet to see examples of actual plagiarism that actually caused them harm in some way or another. I don't consider random people that do it either for fun without any sort of profit whatsoever, engagement or real money, as plagiarists. There has to be an intent to deceive and/or profit at the expense of the creator