LLMs which were trained on the works of thousands of other developers with similar licenses, who are offered no similar credit here.
It also claims copyright of the code as though you have authored it, but you're claiming here to have used LLMs to generate it. Seems like trying to have it both ways.
From the article,
The second step is to remove from consideration aspects of the program which are not legally protectable by copyright. The analysis is done at each level of abstraction identified in the previous step. The court identifies three factors to consider during this step: elements dictated by efficiency, elements dictated by external factors, and elements taken from the public domain.
This means that the code written for interfacing with an external API, eg, GitHub OAuth, would not be covered by any sort of copyright as the expression is dictated by requirements of the API itself.
The overall structure and organization of the code was not generated by LLMs and is fully covered by copyright.
LLMs are in fact very good at writing code that would probably not be copyrightable in the first place and are pretty bad at writing the overall expressive systems structures that would be covered by copyright.
A requirement not extended to the open source developers whose code you are using essentially a copyright and licensing laundering engine to get around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Compari...