Tangent to that is the "who gets sued and needs to fix it when a code audit is done?"
Ultimately, the question is then "who is responsible for verifying that the code submitted to production isn't copying from sources that have incompatible licensing?"
and how is that different from a student learning how to code off stackoverflow (or anywhere else for that matter), then reproducing some snippets/learnt code structure, in their employment?
Or a random employee copies some art work that is then published ( https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/post-office-owes... ). You will note all the people that didn't get in trouble there - neither the photographer who created the image, nor Getty in making it available, nor the random employee who used it without checking its provenance.
In all of these cases, it is (or would be) the organization that published the copyrighted work without doing the appropriate diligence on checking what it is, if it would be useable, and how it should be licensed.
> The Post Office says it has new procedures in place to make sure that it doesn't make a mistake like this again.
... which is what companies who make use of AI models for generating content (be it art or code) should be doing to ensure that they're not accidentally infringing on existing copyrighted works.
If Microsoft is so confident in Pilot doing sufficient remixing then why not train it on their own internal code? And why put the burden of IP vetting on clients who have less info than Pilot?