[zaarn]

I don't think that is so easy, a tiny training set would obviously defeat the point but the other part is that the AI can't commit copyright infringement, and I don't have to ask it to produce anything. I merely fed it copyrighted code and released it to other developers without documenting that fact. Possibly open source the entire bot, as no part of the AI would be under the restrictions of the training set.

[542458]

Again, the law isn’t enforced by robots and is able to adapt such that “clever legal hacks” don’t typically work. Us programming nerds tend to think in terms of rigid, unambiguous rules that treat inputs as black boxes, but the law does not work like this.

[zaarn]

I'm well aware but I don't think this is an issue here.

[nl]

It's exactly the issue.

If the AI could be shown to have copied the code it would likely to be found to be infringement.

If it was found to have generated new unique code, and merely leant how to program from the code it was trained on it likely wouldn't.

In either case, this is different to a clean-room implementation (which I think is what you said by "white room").

Clean-room implementations are supposed to protect against trade secret infringement, and are mostly used when building interop with hardware (where compatibility has special carve-outs).

If a person or AI had seen copyright code used in the project it would never be considered clean room.

But CDDL code is fine for a person or AI to learn from when building a new, incompatible implementation that doesn't share any code.