This is an interesting question, because it’s really more about psychology than AI itself. I think there are a mix of motives here. Some people probably really hope to “get through,” especially if the rules don’t formally check the provenance of the text in detail, or if there’s a chance that the quality of the work will outweigh the fact that the tools were used. Others may simply not fully distinguish between AI-assisted and fully generated text, perceiving it as part of their own editing process or inspiration.

There’s also the option that for some it really looks like a way of protesting — that if the text is good, it doesn’t matter how it was created. But in practice, such competitions usually focus not only on quality, but also on compliance with the rules, and the organizers explicitly emphasize this. So “changing the rules because of one strong text” is usually not a realistic strategy.

If we extend this logic a little, similar discussions often arise in other digital spheres, for example in PEI online gambling https://interacasino.com/regions/prince-edward-island/ where there is also a constant balance between automation, algorithms and the human factor. There, users sometimes perceive the system as something that can be bypassed or used to their advantage, but it is more of a source of impulsive income and entertainment.

And, as you yourself noted, some people can think even simpler - in terms of potential winnings, followers or attention, where the main thing is not the process of creation, but the result. In the end, it is a mixture of different motivations, and not one clear logic.