That is not the same and I really feel like the distinction should be obvious.
Most articles will link to sources from others and then build on top of them for their own article. Actually giving sources for your work. That isn't swiping the content to write an article. Yes there are bad actors in that regard, but most play by the accepted rules here.
With the AI work, attribution of source is gone. Who did the work that you are benefiting from is gone. The people that benefit are those that made the AI and the people using it, skipping the source for the training data.
I believe that the law allows us to link to others’ online content. The reason might be that the link takes you to their site where they control the presentation and can benefit from your viewing it.
WP is open-source. Users could always create plugins and edit code if they wanted. Before AI, that meant that less knowledgeable users would piece together their stuff by copying and pasting random code snippets they found online. I argue that is way more dangerous than getting it done with AI. Besides, both in the plugin and in its readme file I make it very clear that this is not for production sites, the code must be thoroughly tested and reviewed before using it.
To flesh this out further, consider the networking and security model around networking as an extention of this tool perhaps. I feel like there is a lot of room for innovation in the wordpress honeypot scene.
Short of that tighter integration with known quality tools/frameworks for wordpress like ACF, ACPT, Flynt, Bedrock, etc# might help.
Although this statement of course has been made with tongue in cheek, it's worth pointing out that with modern devices borrowing a finger only works if the finger is still warm (which usually translates to the owner of that finger being alive).
