[paulryanrogers]

Just calling something AI doesn't copyright-wash the output.

If I write an RE to strip license comments and sell it as AI that doesn't mean I'm innocent of facilitating copyright infringement.

Or if I sell a NN to strip watermarks from a movie broadcast it's unlikely a court is going to throw out the case because "welp it's AI, no copyright".

[naikrovek]

go look up the findings from courts on this and come tell me i’m wrong. computers cannot create copyrighted work alone; the human operating and/or programming the computer is who copyright is granted to.

in the case of Copilot, the output is determined by the keystrokes of the user who uses copilot; that user must decide if what they see is to be used, or if some other piece of code should be used instead, or if they need to provide more input or even just write the thing themselves. Copilot aids the user; it does not run automatically or non-interactively, meaning it alone cannot violate copyright.

no computer or computer program has EVER been granted copyright, anyway. ever. justification for those decisions is that copyrightable work necessarily requires intellectual effort to create, which is something only a human can supply, by definition.