It's always the same two examples, and I would not classify that as "many", especially since that fast inverse square root function has been shown to be on GitHub and other sites countless of times with all sorts of different licences (which is wrong, but copilot doesn't seem to do better or worse than humans in this regard).

That codeium.com is just asking leading questions, or the AI equivalent of that.

https://twitter.com/docsparse/status/1581461734665367554

It implements common operation in a standard way as far as I can tell. AI re-implementation is not identical.

It seems more like multiple discovery than plagiarism let alone re-producing a copy without a license.

It is mutatis mutandis the same but is that a problem? I'm sure many would say so, I'm not convinced.

Ultimately if his code is out there a Google search could bring up a snippet without the license visible and I might copy paste that. The crux is the same code might be presented without context.

Copilot is just a tool and the personal responsible for it's safe usage is the human behind it.

In my world view, if I copy a picture off Google image search ultimately I am morally the one who infringed copyright not Google.

I have an idea why, but... why exactly? What about a web scraper (that I made, similarly to that of Google) that downloads images? What if it is randomly downloading images and not intentionally a specific one?