In fact, I use Claude all the time, and it is very solid at getting quotes right when the attribution is clear-cut, but not when it finds a forum discussion thread like this. You also don't know the prompt that provoked this response which was very lackadaisically composed on my part.
AI getting this completely right would be outside the scope of a cheap or free subscription. This discussion, over multiple threads, involving multiple people, is simply too complicated for it to parse, given there's a limit to how hard it will work on any given response. All that it 'got completely wrong' is that it didn't search the entire history of the entire internet to see if the blurb was from any publication ever posted to the internet.
If I had a $100/month subscription using a model with more horsepower, and I wasn't using a model that specializes in coding work but rather on interpreting conversations, it would've done a better job. You get what you pay for in the AI world, and you need to use the right tool for the task, and you ABSOLUTELY have to compose good prompts 
But your overall point is taken: It's established that AI makes mistakes and should be reviewed.
P.S. I understand how and why "writing" generally, and proper attribution in particular is very near and dear to you and understand why this mistake (in Goonch's post) is particularly irksome 
Edit history
Recommendations
2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read