That would effectively rely on the doctrine of trade secret rather than copyright. A major difference is that accidental or malicious disclosure of a trade secret usually ends the trade secret status, forever. In an alternate universe where computer source code had never been copyrightable, famous leaks (Microsoft Windows, 2004; id Quake, 1997) would have effectively open-sourced those codebases, and other companies could have openly and legally used them.

As source code becomes more of a generated artifact of software development the way object code is an artifact of compilation, we might be moving toward a world where secrecy, constant forward motion, and moats become even more of an asset (vs plain IP protection).

Nor does it matter if code has no value.

I do think what happens in this case is SCOTUS will ultimately rule that AI-built code is copyrightable while art is not. I'm sure there's some rationale thick enough for them.

So I can reverse engineer in peace without Nintendo ninjas lawyers coming after me?