No they weren't able to generate the same existing code, both because that code is not included anywhere in the model, and because Copilot (not "Codepilot") has safeguards against this kind of situation, should it arise in the highly unlikely situation that a snippet is repeated thousands of times across thousands of repositories.
I've gotta let you know that people copy code snippets from all sorts of codebases with little regard for licenses anyway, because they're toothless in 99% of cases, AI or not. It's a nice illusion that anyone respects licenses, but it's just not true.
Yes it is, and I don't care about how popular my comments are. In many slavic countries antisemitism is the default and normal opinion. Semitic people are not the sacred cows they are in american culture.
A simple search on github reveals that those functions were reposted verbatim thousands of times, most people just copy and paste snippets of code they find useful, ignoring licenses. This highlights how all the power a license promises to hold is completely fictional. Any "in the style of Tim Davis" modifier only shows some kind of unwarranted self-importance complex on the part of the guy, thinking his style is widely known and distinctive (it's not). It's not the job of Copilot, the team that builds it, or the programmers that use it, to determine where the functions that were reposted thousands of times under all kinds of licenses originated.
This is the same case as with copyrighted photos in newspapers, a paper prints a photo somebody allowed them to use, but then it turns out that person did not have the right to use it in the first place. Did not stop newspapers from printing photos at all.
If you think most people pay any attention to licenses or respect them you better think again. Snippets get copied verbatim with no regard to their source all the time. Licenses have no power and are routinely ignored.
It prints this code because you have it open in another editor tab. Wish people who don't know at all how it works stopped acting all outraged when they're laughably wrong.
For most commercial purposes screen readers can be safely ignored, they are not used by big spenders. Social share cards can be previewed readily and easily prepared without impacting the main content of the website.
And - what's the point? Websites that want to track you will track you anyway, there's a whole array of technologies that will let them to, and won't display anything to you if you don't run JS. Security objections are pointless, it's not 2001, JS is not anything new, and it's not at all a security risk, browsers are sandboxed and well isolated.
Purists who refuse to load websites with JS are such a small percentage of visitors they can be safely ignored. It's an uphill battle that they're losing very fast. I don't think you can use more than 5% of websites without JS in any capacity.
The whole point of websites is lost if they can't track visitors, see what they're paying attention to, and how to manipulate their behavior. Everyone's doing it, and if you don't, you're at a disadvantage. There are very few websites whose purpose is not to influence you to spend money on something. Most of the articles and posts you read are AI generated, or written by "content writers" never intended to be read by actual people, they're there for the google bot to keep some activity going.
The point is that you're not supposed to receive the text by itself, the text is only there to entice you to visit the site, but you're supposed to click links, subscribe to the newsletter, get tracking scripts served to you, and buy whatever product/service they're luring you towards with those blog posts.
Nowadays every marketing person will strongly insist on producing tons of semantically meaningless "blog posts" just to generate some new "content" on the site so that google ranks it higher. The blog very rarely exists for you to just read it, most of the time it's a marketing tool supposed to steer you towards something else, and it's not in their interest to allow you to just read the text without the accompanying cruft.
>spraying an aerosol like sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere
What happened to it being a toxic gas? And is this why they were pushing so hard to completely discredit the notion of "chemtrails" so that all criticism of this idea can be killed easily?