Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think this document needs to be a comprehensive record of every piece of copyrighted material that Copilot or Codex produce. That's something that will be produced during/for the trial process itself. Right now, this is just establishing the basic premise, and the claims for the type of behavior that is going on.

I think they intentionally picked (literal) textbook examples because they're short and easy for non-experts to grasp and have some understanding of. But I don't think we've seen any of the code from the respective J. Doe's yet, and I would assume we would in the trial (possibly in addition to more cases).

I tested co-pilot initially with Hello World in different languages. In Lisp, it gave me verbatim code from a particular tutorial, which was made obvious because their code had "Hello <tutorialname>" where <tutorialname> was the name of a YouTube tutorial, instead of the word "World." It was surely slurped into the model via someone who had done the tutorial and uploaded their efforts to Github. Mind you, it's pretty much the way everyone would code it, but the inclusion of <tutorialname> is definitely an issue.

So it isn't too hard to prove the case.

I have only skimmed. But lines 23 and 24 on page 23 also reference Copilot's autocompletion of Quake III's `Q_rsqrt`[1] and mention that it is under GPL2.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287

You didn't read the relevant part of the complaint. It starts on document page 14 (PDF page 17). There's a clear footnote:

> Due to the nature of Codex, Copilot, and AI in general, Plaintiffs cannot be certain these examples would produce the same results if attempted following additional trainings of Codex and/or Copilot.

The offending solution from the AI included extra lines that are reasonably understood to come straight from Eloquent JavaScript:

    console.log(isEven(50));
    // → true
    console.log(isEven(75));
    // → false
    console.log(isEven(‐1));
    // → ??

Moreover, if this case wins, it threatens to disrupt one of the biggest technological progressions of all time.

AI/ML will change every field just as the Internet and smartphones did. It doesn't show any indication of peaking, either.

If the US chooses the wrong path here, we'll only tie our hands behind our backs. Other countries won't be so foolish.

We should be able to train on any media a child could see, hear, or read.

That isPrime function does not even cut at sqrt(n). Asking for the state of the art isPrime function is too much, but the sqrt trick is the very first step and it's free. (IIRC, the faster version uses i*i<n)

When searching for "console.log(isEven(50));" "// → true", which is one of the parts that the complaints is about, since this is also reproduced inside a Programming learning book: We get with cs.github.com

" Showing 1 - 20 of 66 files found (in 76 milliseconds)"

So, if this lawsuit succeeds in some way shape or form, does the author have a case against the 66 people that reproduced these lines in their own repository?

Those are quite copyrightable, in the same way that rangeCheck() is copyrighted.