Sure, but if they can be demonstrated to ever plagiarize without attribution, and the default user behavior is to pencil-whip the output, which it is, then it becomes statistically certain that users are unwittingly plagiarizing other works.
Its like using a tool that usually bakes cookies, but every once in a great while, it knocks over the building its in. It almost never does that, though.
There's the rub. When establishing laws and guidelines, every term must be explicitly defined. Lack of specificity in these definitions is where bad-faith actors hide their misdeeds by technically obeying the letter of the law due to its vagueness, while flagrantly violating its spirit.
Its why today, in the USA, corporations are legally people when its convenient, and not when its not, and the expenditure of money is governments protected "free speech".
I don't remember having heard any practical solutions to the problem so far. They work best on real data, but they rapidly grew to the point where they are generating dramatically more artificial data than humans are generating real data, so they have hopelessly polluted their own well.
Its a very difficult problem to deal with no obvious solutions that are at all cheap, easy, or even feasible, so someone's going to have a really, really smart idea for them to get over that hurdle. Add on to that the fact the types of AIs most impacted by his problem, the LLMs, are the ones that are currently the most heavily subsidized by venture capital. So, not only are they facing increasing technical hurdles, they are about to get increasingly expensive to operate at the same time as the seed funding is used up and they have to switch to a revenue-positive business model.
I don't think the technological limitations are what are making those AR goggles get poor reception. They face a couple of non-technological hurdles that I think are going to be nearly impossible for them to overcome:
I'm not ignoring the bigger picture at all. I know that the conflicts and oppression of today often have historical context, but that context does not equal justification.
It boils down to this difference:
The historical events did lead to the current events, and, you can draw a direct causal line between the historical oppression and today's, but those events were perpetrated by dead people against other dead people. The reason that, for example, black Americans have justified grievance, is because it is still ongoing and their conditions are still impacted. If the black American community today was fully repaired from those historical events, they would have no grievance, but we all know that didn't happen, which is why they're still justifiably up in arms about it.
Except for violence being involved, your example is not materially similar, though. Most of the oppression of ethnic Jews you're referring to predates Israel's existence, and certainly the existence of almost all present-day Israelis. Israel is playing the role of aggressor at this time in history; they did not suffer the oppression of their ancestors, and it was not perpetrated by any of the people they are fighting today.
In the scenario I've described and those like it, there is a conflict between people that feel oppressed and those they feel are oppressing them--right now. It is not about revenge or settling an old slight, but about getting their current material conditions improved, as is clear from the fact that such a demand was made during the video from this terrible incident.
No, I would be even more devastated than I am now, because in addition to my planet, country, town, and general environment, my family is also harmed by the war going on around me.
These people are taking up arms against those treading on them, and war is messy. You can blame the combatant for the specific harms he causes like you are in this case, but that is very philosophically close to blaming a bullet for a murder rather than the shooter. The combatant does have agency and culpability of his own, but not in the broader context of the combat he is in. In that context, those that created that scenario are the "shooters" and the individual actors are the "bullets".
I'm not mad at the North Korean soldier that killed my great uncle nearly as much as I am at the North Korean leadership and their enablers, and my own government, who together made that situation the hell that it was.
It goes ballot box > soap box > ammo box.
These people are just about at step 3. They have been mired in a cold class war their whole lives that is starting to get hot.
It is true that warfare is a grievous waste of resources, but I think the only appropriate place to put the blame for all of that waste is on the aggressor.
Its Nintendo. They were already suing them before they even knew about the ad. Most lawyers are familiar with the old "cease and desist" letter method, but Nintendo's even got "don't even start" warnings from their legal department.
I do think that some projects will fare better than others, particularly ones like you mentioned, where the team is robust and capable of handling the filtering of increased submissions from these new sources.
I believe we are going to end up having to see some new mechanism for project submissions to deal with the growing imbalance between submission volume and work hours available for review, as became necessary when viruses, malware, and spam first came into being. It has quickly become incredibly easy for anyone to make a PR, but not at all easier to review them, so something is going to have to give in the FOSS world.