The discussion is not about ownership of the code, that doesn't interest the people who have written the policy in question.

"Assisted" does not necessarily mean "authored", which is the point of the comment you're replying to; helping you review the code is "assistance", even if no code was written.

Curiously, https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/387#... shows that at least some contributors realize the vagueness of the policy, but they don't seem to care, which is rather unfortunate.

It is doubtful whether anyone can claim copyright over LLM-generated code since it was not created by any human and the "training" does not preserve provenance.

Possibilities range from "public domain" to "the cancer Microsoft accused GPL-licensed code of being". In no plausible scenario does the person who pressed the "generate slop" button become the copyright holder.