I'm afraid I'm just unclear on exactly what part of this you argue is crossing a moral line.

I.e. what is being stolen without attribution? I'm genuinely not getting what you mean in this specific case.

Limited visualization grammar means that any non-trivial visualization request will be lifting a particular solution, more or less verbatim.

I don't see how it's possible to show that the solution is lifted by the LLL as opposed to a arrived at by the LLM.

It seems to me that such solutions are soon to be within the set potentially constructed by an LLM.

As they say, people are unwilling to understand something if their monetary gain depends on not understanding it.

Let me break it down for you. If I ask for a visualization that squares the circle and there is one repo that has an example of squaring the circle, the LLM will "arrive" at a way of squaring the circle.

That's not really answering my question.

If (1) an LLM is able to arrive at solutions in the same class of difficulty as the solution for the target problem and (2) it's not possible to establish the provenance of the solution actually offered by the LLM, then what's the argument for assuming that the solution is based on IP rather than constructive reasoning?

thats too many ifs.

Retrain the LLM without access to the repo data. Ask for the same solution. Enjoy the hallucination. Provenance established.

By the way - your haste in ascribing bad motives to those disagreeing with you rather turned me off continuing this conversation.