I don't think rule 7 would be self-contradictory since you indeed don't own the output of an LLM, but crucially, also no one else owns it. I read that rule as don't submit someone else's code without permission, which isn't violated by using an LLM.

The long tradition refers to the use of tooling in general, and could mean that, since past tools were accepted, recent tools like LLMs can be fair game as well.

But, since there can be doubts about this interpretation, them saying explicitly if LLMs are permitted or not could be beneficial. But then again, maybe they don't want to commit to an hard rule and have more freedom to decide on a case by case basis, or just don't advertise that LLMs are welcome to prevent a flood of vibe-coded submissions.

Either you view LLM code as stolen, in which case you cannot get permission of the original owners, or you accept that LLM code is not copyrightable and has no original owners.

In both cases you cannot get permission.

But, in the second case, you don't need permission. This is the crucial point.

You need to be careful about those assertions.

On the “stolen” side, so far the courts have not generally agreed with that perspective except in cases where there is actually an existing copyrighted work that the LLM output is substantially similar to.

On the not-copyrightable side, the direct output of an LLM is generally legally seen as not copyrightable, but significant human modification or editing/reworking/steering/compilation (as in compiling a bunch of LLM-generated fragments into a functional whole) is still likely to be copyrightable.