So the things that are covered by copyright in software are the creative choices... like, the overall structure of the code, the specific classes, and interfaces, etc. Like, there's a zillion ways to organize code (certainly some better than others!) and this is where clean-room design comes into play. It is really unlikely that in a decent sized codebase that the classes, or types, or whatever are going to be substantially similar.

You're both right but only one of you is seated in reality, the other describes the reality we aught to be in, but are not.

While I know I am right about the current interpretation of how copyright applies to software I am also of the opinion that this is also how things aught to be.

I have yet to hear a persuasive argument otherwise.

Is it because I both write and publish open source code and write and publish music that I am able to clearly delineate idea from expression?

For one, I have never been satisfied with the non-utilitarian aspects of Copilot’s output. When I am writing software the real art has always been in how code is organized. I gain absolutely no aesthetic value from autocompleting unit tests or boilerplate.

You may think that the outputs of Copilot and Stable Diffusion are artistic in nature but all I see is a rhyming dictionary.

I look at attempts to have copyright cover the utilitarian aspect of software as an attempt to claim ownership over chord progressions, scales or time signatures.