This is not the same at all. An equivalent would be if Steven King read a lot of other authors and then copied parts of their works into his own books for profit, even if they were changed slightly.

How large does the section has to be? A single sentence? Or two? You can currently set Copilot to not include suggestions where more than 150 characters appear in the training set.

It depends upon a judge. A letter or word doesn't carry that much meaning. A value is created when something meaningful is made. If copilot gives code from linux kernel, I think it should follow GPL license.

There are reasons why one opensource project(forgot the name probably redox os) bans people from contributing if they have read pirated source code?

If you accidentally recite someone else's work, it's still plagiarism.

I am absolutely certain that I have written sentences that are word-for-word identical to sentences other people have written. Should I be sued?

You're describing something that happens regularly. Especially in music.

That's the point.

Accidentally including the same material in something new is not immediately infringement.

Steven King is a human. This is a computer program — a complex one, but still a computer program. How does this analogy make any sense?

steven king is just a very complex program, being executed in the brain. There's no way to "look inside" the black box of steven king, and you can make the argument that there's no way to look inside the blackbox of copilot. Therefore, you judge both by the outward actions using the same set of rules.

Building something we can't introspect isn't the same as building something intelligent.

Anyone who thinks Copilot is writing code with any comparable degree of novelty to Stephen King's prose clearly hasn't actually tried Copilot.

> Therefore, you judge both by the outward actions using the same set of rules.

No, you don't. You don't do that for kids, not for animals, not for corporations, not for.... . We don't even do that for patents vs copyright vs ....

Just looking at leaked source from Windows and then contributing to Wine has gotten people in trouble before. If Microsoft is willing to play that game it makes sense that it should go both ways.