If LLM training violates AGPL, it violates MIT. People focus too much on the copyleft terms of the *GPL licenses. MIT, and most permissive licenses, require attribution.
Honestly with how much focus there tends to be on *GPL in these discussions, I get the feeling that MIT style licenses tend to be the most frequently violated, because people treat it as public domain.
This is a good call out. What would it fundamentally change? MIT is a few hairs away from just publishing something under public domain is it not? There's the whole "there's no warranty or liability if this code blows up your potato" bit of the MIT, but good luck trying to reverse engineer from the LLM which project was responsible for your vibe coding a potato into exploding.
Honestly with how much focus there tends to be on *GPL in these discussions, I get the feeling that MIT style licenses tend to be the most frequently violated, because people treat it as public domain.