like, minus all the plagarism and energy use issues.
Pretty sure that's the primary thing everyone takes issue with. If you removed that most people wouldn't have as big of a problem with it. There is still a social issue at play in terms of the potential damage generative AI can do to the job market with no real safety nets or long term consideration for the consequences to society and the economy, but most people aren't even getting that far.
Reading the quote it doesn't sound like she was necessarily talking about Charlie Kirk. What was actually said was very ambiguous and there are a few different ways it could be interpreted only one of which would be in reference to Charlie being a grifter while the others wouldn't. It's certainly interesting and a decent chance it was a freudian slip, but the article title doesn't really seem justified. It acts like this is some huge bombshell when it barely qualifies as a footnote.