> The credits for my code are protected (with the GPL you have to tell where your code originates from)

But that's literally anathema to the spirit of GPL. Copyleft exists only as a reaction to copyright which is sadly ingrained in legal systems, but the original thought about free software, at the time of GPL inception, is that in an ideal world, copyright shouldn't exist for software ; it's leveraged by GPL only to protect against abuse of copyright holders that could close open code, which is thus made impossible "legally" with the GPL. AI makes this distinction fal into "practically" as pretty much anything is "open" for individual use now (e.g the only use that matters).

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fsfs/rms-essays.pdf

Attribution and copyright are separate. Who says that, even if copyright didn't exist for software, attribution also wouldn't?

If anything, the remark that I have to make to the parent is that in principle attribution is also required by non-copyleft licenses. However, I doubt it's respected for the hundreds of crates or npm modules in a typical Rust or JavaScript project...

Even the true copyright abolitionists (who want companies like Oracle to be able to fork their software and make a billion dollars releasing the binaries) still use MIT license which requires attribution.

The spirit of free software is about learning from others and having control of your hardware.

Given the supposed commoditization of intelligence and recent memory prices, I'd say LLMs are literally anathema to the spirit of the GPL.