I think that would apply to people tricked into reading/watching AI slop video, but I think his definition is a likely one that could apply.
You try to google search, you get an 'ai overview'. In a bizarre scenario, DuckDuckGo made a big deal of asking the users and showing the users overwhelmingly wanted to skip AI results by default, and duckduckgo still defaults to AI summary unless you take measures to opt out.
An analogy is dificult, but I suppose imagine a subway dropped off someone and there's no stairs up, only a tunnel for a Tesla to take you to the next stop. You "use" a car, but were given no option to do otherwise because you were stuck underground and they forced you to take the car to carry on.
In either case, his definition certainly is a likely one for a Gen Z respondant to be thinking when they respond "yes they use AI". On the flip side some probably felt as you do and responded that they did not use AI, because they did not voluntarily do so.
Yeah, one would think that would blow a grand jury ruling. Vandalism, arson... ok.
If it weren't an external gate and was instead someone's front door, then maybe, but as it stands, it's all property damage and attempted murder is a crazy reach...