There's a lot of sibling commenters disagreeing with this take but I think they miss that ultimately this comes down to how legal experts interpret tech, rather

There's a lot of sibling commenters disagreeing with this take but I think they miss that ultimately this comes down to how legal experts interpret tech, rather than what tech experts think law should apply. This is, imo, unfortunate, as often the legal interpretation is based on a gross misunderstanding of how the tech works, but this is the way. I don't think copilot should be legal according to my own interpretation but in this (rare) case I feel the "IANAL" tag applies not because I lack (legal) knowledge, but rather because I have (tech) knowledge that is likely absent from actual decision making on legal outcomes (therefore leading to different legal outcomes than how I would see things working).