> I understand the code the AI provided could be stolen and you don't
> want to play that game, ok.

1) It is blatantly obvious to everyone that these AI were provided with
   large volumes of code, and that licenses on the files are ignored,
   because from the companies's perspective this is "teaching".

2) The word "stolen" is being used incorrectly.  Nothing is stolen.

3) The output of these AI is a sophisticated form of pattern regurgitation.
   Regurtigating the old.  Generally the regurgitation is differnet.
   But that's not the real problem.

4) Noone can put a Copyright onto that output, because under the current laws
   that requires a human to have created the output.

Lacking Copyright (or similarily a Public Domain declaration by a human), we
don't receive sufficient rights grants which would permit us to include it
into the aggregate body of source code, without that aggregate body becoming
less free than it is now.