Unfortunately the term "open-source" AI alone is meaningless without knowing the users definition of open-source. More often than not it just means "openly available". In this case for example they could be using Whisper, which is openly available, but from OpenAI and still has all the caveats around used data, resource usage for training etc.

The unmitigated tendency for people to selectively morally approve homeomorphic elements of the same set based on whether or not each element is personally useful to them is extremely alarming.

There isn't enough information to judge. For example, the article doesn't mention if the training data was legally and ethically acquired.

Sorry if this is a hot take, but this is of no importance to me.