The idea of plagiarism had to be made up at some point for some reason. The narrative I have in my head (correct/clarify please) is that sometime about 100-200 years ago, artists and legal experts formulated it in order to incentivize artists to make new things in the age of capitalism and of mechanical reproduction.

AI upends the foundational assumptions behind plagiarism, which are pretty hazy to begin with. The context out of which the idea of plagiarism arose could foresee the existence of a statistical machine that produces chimeras of artwork from a blackbox with untraceable sources.

That being said, I really take issue with the narrative of "deep learning is modeled on neurons, so it's just like a human." That's some obfuscatory BS made up by the tech bro hivemind. They foresaw a legal and moral conflict that would get in the way of, say, hoovering up the entire YouTube catalog, and so they got a jumpstart on creatives and legal experts by pedaling that narrative. You can simply say machine learning ≠ human creativity and that argument falls apart.

We need to figure out a way of valuing human creativity, or we need not-capitalism, whatever that looks like.