"This raises the question of whether AI checks us according to a pre-set algorithm or learns from us through the effective substitution of concepts."

There's no question. AI does not understand concepts. It does not reason. It's just a calculator that has algorithms that assembles text from examples, it's 'training data', by variably assigning words and phrases weighting per the algorithms.

Stephen Wolfram of Wolfram Alpha well explains it here.

"...appropriating authorship..."

Is plagiarism. You point out that Hivewatchers have a difficult job, made more difficult by the ongoing evolution of technology, and, IMHO, the inadvisable prior enabling of automation to usurp human social interaction, which I have long opposed.

I am aware there is a space between posting bot generated content and translation services, which your comment exemplifies. I can't lay down some law that, once automation of human social interactions is allowable, can separate what degree of editing, research, or suggestions is acceptable and what isn't.

To my mind, such technology is useful as a teaching tool, but posts on Hive should be manually typed by people. Hivewatchers have their own policies, and will undertake them as they see fit. They haven't asked me anything, and I don't expect them to.

Edit: you illustrate that principle that differentiates AI and plagiarism from Computer art and authentic writing in your example trying to claim using Paint is using AI.

"We use the mouse to tell the computer to draw a circle of a given color and get the result."

That is the difference. You're not prompting the computer to draw the circle. You're drawing the circle.