not only that, but, if a LLM can actually complete a code task it's a good sign that that problem has a public code repository solving it (usually in a way that is better than what the LLM offers)

Having read the above conversation excerpt and the page you linked... how do you get to it feeling like plagiarism? Given a constrained set of information here, there's only so many ways to present the information. They roughly discuss the same data points, but the writing is different in both. Is this disallowed?

Take the "seahorse sticker or emoji-style image" part.

It's the exact same words. It is quite specific phrasing. There's no other result on the web for this.

It's not only this part, the whole thing feels very similar, just with more confidence and in a sublty different order.

When the set of ideas and the phrasing are this similar without citing the source, I call this plagiarism.

Now, it could be that the emojipedia page is AI slop, but then the AI would seem to have invented this specific phrasing, which I would find unlikely.

It could also be that the UI shows citations but they don't survive copy-paste.

What if it’s the other way around? Your linked article is based on AI slop? Nowadays, you cannot be sure.