DeVault: GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

I think rgmoore and NYKevin answered that question pretty convincingly in their replies to my comment above: if you believe that your code exists in something it shouldn't you argue that and courts don't care how it got to where it shouldn't have, only if it is there or not. Perhaps I can put it another way: what the AI model produces doesn't matter, only where that output ends up in.

Even so, I still think that the legal status of the "AI model" warrants further introspection. When talking about open source code the "AI model" isn't much of a consideration because at worst it stores code in some cryptic way that is available in a much more easier digested form. But that changes a whole lot if the training material is some propriety code stolen from somewhere. If your "AI model" is able to reproduce the stolen code verbatim (or sufficient parts for copyright to apply) and training of the "AI model" is "give an exception on copyright rules when doing text and data mining, for any purpose" (bluca's words) that should mean that this trained "AI model" is fully legal and thus a legal distribution mechanism for the stolen code. Surely there is a legal principal to prevent things to work out this way ? At what point does an "AI model" turn into a "distribution mechanism" ?