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.

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.

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

"Sources for the load-bearing claims"

I no longer know if this is a real person who is simping for Anthropic and will be ultimately enslaved by Anthropic or if this is an Anthropic ad to have "proof" for the high demand of their services.

Neither, it is just a random LLM-generated issue.

It it was an LLM, why didn't it just vibecode the desired software instead of generating ticket spam?

Because using cheap LLMs to spam GH is way less expensive than fixing software with SOTA models.