Ok sure, in the alternative, here's the argument:
The AI was trained with the code, so the complete rewrite is tainted and not a clean room. I can't believe this would need spelling out.
The AI was trained with the code, so the complete rewrite is tainted and not a clean room. I can't believe this would need spelling out.
So for this case, not much different legally. Of course there is the practical difference just like there is between me seeing you with my own eyes and me taking a picture of you.
"Training" an LLM ist not the same as training a human being. It a metaphor. Its confusing the save icon with an actual floppy disk.
I can say I "trained" my printer to print copyrighted material by feeding it bits but that that would be pure sophism.
Problem is that law hasn't really caught up the our brave new AI future yet so lots of decisions are up in the air. Plus governments incentivized to look the other way regarding copyright abuses when it comes to AI as they think that having competitive AI is of strategic importance.
Maybe? But the design of the floppy disk is for data storage and retrieval per se. It can't give you your bits in a novel order like an LLM does (by design). From what I can tell in this case, the output is significantly differentiated from the source code.
Parent was making a claim about clean room not being required, without making claims about whether LLM coding is or isn't clean room.