Even if it's somehow available under an MIT license (which is questionable on the part of jethrodaniel), there's still infringement. MIT isn't public domain, it still has

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Replicating it without complying with those terms is still infringement.

> but it's hard for Github to determine that in general, so I doubt they would be liable for the error.

Please insert that meme, "That's not how that works. That's not how any of this works!"

The legal system is permission based, not forgiveness or "I didn't know" based.

I’m not a lawyer but my understanding these are torts so all you have to prove is Microsoft has liability. I think this would be easy to prove due to the way neural networks work since it’s just a way of performing a search.

Since it’s a tort I don’t think you have to prove they should have know it would return copyrighted code, the fact that it does is enough to have liability.

That doesn't stop youtube from blasting people away over copyright issues?

On youtube, video uploads are a cost center, whereas on github, code is a profit center