These concerns seem like throwing the baby out of bathwater, which has been correctly pointed out down the Gentoo mail list thread. It's nowhere near as clear cut as OP makes it sound.
Let's take for example the point about code laundering by LLMs and their un-traceability. Clean room reimplementation is widely considered ethical in the software world (for example Wine is built this way), but thinking of it in this context, how is it not laundering to avoid lawsuits, technically legal but ethically dubious? Where's the line? How can writing the boilerplate and generic scaffolding be considered laundering? Certainly there are gradations, and a blanket ban is myopic? This all has been discussed in that thread.
What about writing Autowiki-style documentation, filling the gaps nobody wants to work with? Machine-assisted translation? Indirect use of the tools?
Another point, quality. The person committing the code should be responsible for it, LLM-assisted or not. And the reviewer is responsible for verifying that it meets the quality bar before accepting it. It's as simple as that. (although it's addressed down the thread by pointing out the concerns are redundant).
If storing code in a text file and copying the file doesn't magically remove copyright, and compressing it in a zip file then decompressing it doesn't remove copyright, it seems likely that embedding it in a state machine to be retrieved with the prefix of the original file doesn't magically remove copyright. Even if it's slightly corrupted in the process.
If you wanted a copilot style thing that doesn't print out GPL'd software, you wouldn't feed it a load of GPL'd software for it to remember in the first place. What we have is like doing a clean room reimplementation by loading the original in your text editor before you start and deleting parts of it at random.
Let's take for example the point about code laundering by LLMs and their un-traceability. Clean room reimplementation is widely considered ethical in the software world (for example Wine is built this way), but thinking of it in this context, how is it not laundering to avoid lawsuits, technically legal but ethically dubious? Where's the line? How can writing the boilerplate and generic scaffolding be considered laundering? Certainly there are gradations, and a blanket ban is myopic? This all has been discussed in that thread.
What about writing Autowiki-style documentation, filling the gaps nobody wants to work with? Machine-assisted translation? Indirect use of the tools?
Another point, quality. The person committing the code should be responsible for it, LLM-assisted or not. And the reviewer is responsible for verifying that it meets the quality bar before accepting it. It's as simple as that. (although it's addressed down the thread by pointing out the concerns are redundant).