RSI took away my ability to write any significant amount of code 30 yrs ago. co-pilot plus speech recognition restored that ability. what impressed me most was

RSI took away my ability to write any significant amount of code 30 yrs ago. co-pilot plus speech recognition restored that ability. what impressed me most was that from a textual description,co-pilot gave me code that could have been written by my mind and pre-injury hands. from the comments here, if I push copilot into giving me code that I would have written for a given problem and that code violates licenses, then who is responsible for the copyright violation? co-pilot for giving me code that looks like copyrighted code or me for tweaking co-pilot commands to give me the code I envisioned which looks like copyrighted code? also consider that the very tools used for solving problems in code lead coders to a small number of solutions for a given problem. is it plagiarism or parallel original thought? also consider that when I wrote code, if I was solving a similar problem to what I solved before, I recreated that previously used code fragment (or larger) and use it to solve the problem at hand. I had zero issues leaving a trail of duplicate code behind me especially if the code was a major part of a software patent. I didn't care, my code was lauded for it's readability and reliability. reuse the same concepts in multiple variations, you get real good and writing code correctly. maybe co-pilot like programs could scan existing code bases and find examples of code fragment plagiarism with the goal of showing that software copyrights are useless.