Why do you believe that having an AI read my code and port it into your code base is "legal now"? Let's call that question A. This is a very different question from B whether it is legal to train a model on my code, which is also still a different question from C whether it is legal to use the model you trained on my code to generate code that is in any way similar to my code into your codebase.
As far as I know, A is still illegal, and nothing at all has changed that situation; if it did, it would be shocking, as it essentially undermines the entire legal framework of copyright, and it would be making national news and destroying -- not harming: entirely wiping out -- major software companies.
The only thing I think people have really litigated in the courts is B (as the obvious defendant is the juicy maker of the model rather than the users of the model, whereas they might be able to dodge culpability in C and even A), with the result that it is very likely legal... but, while that might be a bit frustrating, it was never shocking: a model is a highly transformative use case vs. the original code fed into the training.
However... B being legal doesn't actually imply that C is legal -- even if a ton of people fail to appreciate this distinction -- and C is where the war is starting to be fought. Instead of software, I think the most interesting avenue for this to become scary for people assuming this is legal will come from lawsuits involving the music industry (which tended to lead the pro-copyright cause in many of the skirmishes I was involved in while working on device freedom issues).
That said, people really focus too much on C, hoping for that grey area in both the law and in their analogies, when what developers are actually doing now is often A: the model has become an agent that uses tools, has access to the Internet, pulls code off my got repository, and is essentially just running a non-deterministic transform on that data sitting in its context... I have heard nothing that makes it sound as if A is "legal now".
As far as I know, A is still illegal, and nothing at all has changed that situation; if it did, it would be shocking, as it essentially undermines the entire legal framework of copyright, and it would be making national news and destroying -- not harming: entirely wiping out -- major software companies.
The only thing I think people have really litigated in the courts is B (as the obvious defendant is the juicy maker of the model rather than the users of the model, whereas they might be able to dodge culpability in C and even A), with the result that it is very likely legal... but, while that might be a bit frustrating, it was never shocking: a model is a highly transformative use case vs. the original code fed into the training.
However... B being legal doesn't actually imply that C is legal -- even if a ton of people fail to appreciate this distinction -- and C is where the war is starting to be fought. Instead of software, I think the most interesting avenue for this to become scary for people assuming this is legal will come from lawsuits involving the music industry (which tended to lead the pro-copyright cause in many of the skirmishes I was involved in while working on device freedom issues).
That said, people really focus too much on C, hoping for that grey area in both the law and in their analogies, when what developers are actually doing now is often A: the model has become an agent that uses tools, has access to the Internet, pulls code off my got repository, and is essentially just running a non-deterministic transform on that data sitting in its context... I have heard nothing that makes it sound as if A is "legal now".