Comment by wild_egg

As the sibling comment said, the existing precedent is for an entirely different scenario. If a human claims no involvement then it's fair to say they have no ownership. But if I meticulously guide an LLM to implement precisely the code I want to be written, that's an entirely different thing which has not been tested in court.

A similar concept: if I type the code via a brain-computer interface, does the interface get ownership because it is inferring my intent? If I type it via an LLM, why is that less legitimately my creation?

It's fine if I vibecode something and never look at or claim ownership of the code, but if I am actively involved in all of the code but it is written to disk by new tools instead of old tools, why is it suddenly not mine?