> This is how the current legal framework works, and if you expect someone to behave differently, you have to be explicit. The classroom teacher was explicit i

> This is how the current legal framework works, and if you expect someone to behave differently, you have to be explicit. The classroom teacher was explicit in their expectations. The student did not follow the instructions. Did you RTFA? > It's a tool that authors can use to create their works This isn't about authorship or ownership. It doesn't matter whether the words are "yours" or not - that you keep making that a point of contention is a semantic sideshow. This isn't a commercial or artistic enterprise. If the student wants to publish their copy-pasted, error-ridden slop (or masterful slop!), then by all means, they can go for it. Rather, this is a classroom, the goal is to learn, think, and demonstrate understanding. Copy-pasting responses from AI does not do this (even setting aside the explicit instructions not to to do so). Similarly, plagiarism isn't bad in high school because it hurts other authors, it's bad because it's a lazy end-run around the process of learning and thinking that undermines those goals and creates bad habits to avoid critical thinking.