If amoral, they could have been emboldened by exposure to AI use, either their own or by other students, colleagues, etc., while lacking inherent moral pressures for/against slop.

If moral, they could have decided that propagating their message will improve the world, even if only at x% efficiency due to use of AI, and that their intentions will take precedence over being accused of slopping.

If immoral, they could have chosen to run a grift on the chance that no one would notice, overdone it, and then played every card in their hand while perhaps sweeping away evidence of their slop once caught.

(These are constructed teaching examples, not situation-specific inferences or claims.)