Y'all are missing the bigger picture here. This brings up the question of ai and intellectual property and throws the ball into adobe's court to set their army of lawyers on figuiring out a no-win solution for themselves.

• If they do nothing, a working clone normalizes copying their product's behavior and UI. Copyright covers that thinly anyway (the First Circuit in Lotus v. Borland treated a command menu hierarchy as an unprotectable method of operation). Trademarks need policing!! (And they suck)
• If they go after it, they have to argue in court that AI output built from public material is infringing or derivative. That's the precedent the AI industry wants to avoid, and it cuts against Adobe's own Firefly pitch. Imagine what that means for "art" made with an LLM
• If the clone's code is mostly AI-written, its copyrightability is shaky (Copyright Office, Thaler). But that cuts both ways: Adobe can't claim "you stole our code" without proving actual copied code. Which bites into OpenAI, Anthropic, Google's claims that they haven't stolen anything.

Edit: Sorry I should've used Super Intelligence, I don't want to be the enemy. /s