It's kind of funny because a lot of the complaints come precisely from people that publish their code through copyleft (such as GPL) licenses. As it is pointed

It's kind of funny because a lot of the complaints come precisely from people that publish their code through copyleft (such as GPL) licenses. As it is pointed out in the article, sharing is starting to become the default for many developers out there. And personally I think this is a great thing, and I think the author agrees. But copyright is built on a rewards-idea, which counters the altruistic nature of sharing. If you expect something in return you're not actually sharing, but lending. And I think this is where the issue becomes really tricky. There's a societal expectation of reward, we don't live in a sharing economy. I actually want to live in a society where tools such as copilot or AI generated art do not harm artists or developers but improve the capabilities of people who previously couldn't do as they wishes for lack of time, patience or skill. But it seems to me like we can't really make use of our collective knowledge building to the fullest under our current economic and societal paradigms. Now, I'm not sure what kind of society is the one that can truly achieve what we want; but I think it's worth thinking about. And to me, this copyright/machine assistant issue is right at the center of this problem. And, well, not just that but technology as a whole is always a driver of societal innovation as it puts societies in such dire contradictions. Though I do wish artists and people affected by copilot wouldn't focus so much on their individual detriment and would take a bit of a step back and think more about what do we actually want for society as a whole. To me, and I think the article does a pretty good job at explaining this as well, the issue seems to be much bigger than individuals being hurt by the actions of a corporation.