> have you never written the same code for two different projects?

But note this prohibition is of "code that was not written by yourself" rather that written by yourself twice.

I am pretty sure that I have implemented a lot of functions before that would be almost (or completely) identical (not including variable names, indentation, etc.) to that of someone else's work. The smaller the function, the more likely it seems to be true, and some programming languages encourage you to write concise functions.

Yes my point is that the prohibition is based on a theory that tiny pieces of code have copyright and so all AI generated code is tainted.

If you write code for one company/client then the IP belongs to that company as a work for hire.

If you write the same function again for someone else then you would be infringing the first company's copyright - if you truly believe in this theory that little pieces of code have copyright.

If you believe in this theory then you need to have a database of all the code you've ever written and be constantly checking every function you write for potential infringement of a previous employer's rights.

You can’t have it both ways though, if an AI can’t hold copyright and is merely a tool being used by a human engineer who bears legal responsibility and ownership, then the concept of “code that was not written by yourself” is completely incoherent.

It is impossible for code to not be written by yourself under that view because it is just a tool. The fact that it’s mad-libs autocomplete instead of normal intellij auto-complete is totally irrelevant.

It is coherent e.g. if the "AI" is used as a tool to copy another's code.

> The fact that it’s mad-libs autocomplete instead of normal intellij auto-complete is totally irrelevant

Completely relevent if the former had and gave no permission and the latter did.