Sure, but neither of those is an IP Lawyer.
The actual IP Lawyer who turned up and tried to engage, Richard Fontana, had his issue closed:
https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/334
Richard's point was this (quoted below):
---
FWIW, that case is not really relevant to what we are/were talking about here.
The question is whether you are truly an "author", or whether there was no (human) author.
The general legal consensus has been that generative AI output is not copyrightable (without some special facts of some sort, perhaps).
> If all of this code was somehow not copyrightable because someone wrote a prompt instead of directly editing the code, that would have pretty huge implications.
That's exactly it. Your act of applying the MIT license with your copyright notice to code that you did not "directly edit" has enormous implications.