If you're referring to my last sentence, "Arguing otherwise is being disingenuous", two things: 1) People are disingenuous all the time, intentionally and othe

If you're referring to my last sentence, "Arguing otherwise is being disingenuous", two things: 1) People are disingenuous all the time, intentionally and otherwise. Doesn't necessarily mean that they are "bad". The reality is that people must frequently act cynically for the purposes of self-preservation. 2) With this sentence, I am only referring to the question of whether or not the code from co-pilot posted by Tim Davis "is" the original code. In my view, the transformations present in the code are on the level of what clang-format is capable of. I would argue that if you run code through clang-format, it is functionally "the same" as the original. I believe that this is probably obvious to nearly all experienced programmers, hence my point that I think that if someone is arguing to the contrary, they are being disingenuous. For people with skin in the game (like Graveley, quoted in the article), I would argue that they are being disingenuous in order to cover their asses. For people here on HN, I would argue that they are doing so out of naivety. Obviously, you're free to disagree with any of this, and anything in my original post. If you feel like I am accusing you of being "bad", that is not my intention.