Which in this scenario could be accomplished by starting that “this software contains algorithmically generated code that was trained using MIT derived code from X, Y, and Z.
This attribution list would be very long, but it could be done.
I think the interesting thing here would be to compare the generated code with the original training data after the fact. If the generated code does not already exist (with some degree of similarity), then it would be okay to use. Otherwise, if it did already exist, you’d then need to attribute the authors of the chunk of code — which you’d now know.
I’m not discounting the hurdles involved, but there might be ways to overcome them.
On the other hand, open source licenses haven’t been tested thoroughly in court, so maybe the result would be to throw out such attribution requirements entirely. The main relevant case to date is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer
In reality through, we'll all just end up using the MIT No Attribution License copilot.
BSD and MIT license still require attribution of the used source code (there exists a MIT No Attribution License, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MIT_License&oldid...).