So if the code is integrated, the license of the project lies about parts of the code.
The contributor is the human that chose to run the LLM, not the “AI” itself - so the real question is, why isn’t the human’s code copyrightable, and why can’t the human sign a contributor agreement?
Besides, this stuff is not what the author is concerned about:
> I think the major issue is inexperienced human drivers of AI that aren't able to adequately review their generated code … I try to assist inexperienced contributors and coach them to the finish line, because getting a PR accepted is an achievement to be proud of. But if it's just an AI on the other side, I don't need to put in this effort.
They want to coach aspiring contributors based on code they’ve written themselves, not based on how they prompt their AI.
It’s a matter of how they enjoy spending their time.