If both conclusions can be reached by "reasonable" people then that term is contextually meaningless. Why argue semantics when your own usage is irrelevant?
And I stand by my position that considering an autocomplete to be a keylogger is unreasonable because the obvious purpose of the input is to accept you what you type. Automatically submitting may be a slight surprise but doesn't change the intent as you wouldn't type in the box if you were never going to submit it anyway.
Don't be too sure of that: you'd be surprised how often I misuse the browser's location bar when I need to make a very quick note when I don't have time to first open a text editor. Once I typed what I wanted to type, I then have time to open a text editor and copy it there. This became a habit for me back when browsers did not try to provide search suggestions in the address bar. I now still turn off the suggestions now to make sure I do not accidentally send data online that I want to keep private.
...which implies there exist unreasonable people. In common speech, qualifiers are added when there is a need to distinguish. You wouldn't say "some people with brains" unless there existed brainless people and there was a need to distinguish them from the other.
Fair point, though that's more of a corner case.
> Reasonable people wouldn't call it a keylogger
Not a fair point. If your starting assumption is that everyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable, please take a moment to reflect.