So then we come full circle on infringement, if the operator is responsible for the code produced by co-pilot then the articles claim that is not infringement

So then we come full circle on infringement, if the operator is responsible for the code produced by co-pilot then the articles claim that is not infringement because it is machine created fails, as the operator is responsible The argument in the article is that all code made by co-pilot is not infringement because there is no copyright attached. You seem to imply that the copyright of all code made by co-pilot is copyrighted by the operator of co-pilot thus would then fall under copyright law, and thus would/could be infringing