>On the other side, they could argue that it's like a human learning how to code over a decade of looking at the internet, and that human doesn't need to DM eve

>On the other side, they could argue that it's like a human learning how to code over a decade of looking at the internet, and that human doesn't need to DM every code author to ask if they can learn from their content (and the risk for the author is similar given the human might one day recall some author's code verbatim and not give attribution). It might not be that easy, I think Wine developers are not allowed to read code related to Windows, even if this code is published on GitHub. The fact you looked at the code was decided to be a risk. You also have cases with a NN producing an identical output, so you either prove your NN NEVER produces copyrighted code or you have to have a second process that is 100% correct and double checks the NN output and check for plagiarism. I am against Microsoft in this case because they decided not to put their proprietary code in the NN , would have been funny to have the AI write an open source Windows re-implementation when you feed it the Win APi documentation.