[spiralpolitik]

Not quite.

Copyright doesn't protect general concepts, methods, or common knowledge. So you could write a program that is remarkably similar to another one and not infringe copyright. Just like you can write a book with the same plot as another without infringing copyright.

Plus given that most programming languages have a finite grammar and a limited number of ways to express general concepts, the individual bits of code that make up most programs are probably not sufficiently original to be copyrightable in themselves.

[saurik]

But the result is that you can't assume that this is the case: you have to actually look in a case-by-case basis to decide if the chatbot you are using -- one which has no understanding of copyright as nuanced as either of us -- merely learned something general purpose and applied it in a way which did not lead to infringement, if the code it generated is technically infringing but is fair use, or if what it developed isn't allowed.

A lot of people seem to want to believe that the output of the chatbot is somehow inherently clean in all cases, and they cite this idea that a human can read code and learn from it... but a human can -- even without realizing it!! -- infringe on copyrights, and so such an analogy doesn't absolve the chatbot. If we then continue to assume that the chatbot's output is clean, then we are ascribing it a superhuman ability to launder copyright.