I guess it does sort of work as a "grammatical infinity" idea https://medium.com/luminasticity/cardinality-and-growth-rate...

Like an imperative, because copilot can exist as a verb, I copilot a plane, and Copilot can exist as a software product, and as a helper in a software product that is itself a software product that helps you use the software product it is a helper to

So Copilot copilot! could be an imperative for Copilot to Copilot, and Copilot Copilot could be a description of a software product that helps people use a software product named Copilot, but the second is not really grammatically correct as a sentence, whereas the imperative is.

So in the end I guess you could have a Copilot Copilot..[infinite Copilots]..copilot!

Copilot copilots Copilot copilots copilot copilot Copilot copilots

Woah that actually works...

Microsoft-Copilot-branded copilots, which other Microsoft-Copilot-branded copilots assist, themselves assist Microsoft-Copilot-branded copilots.

I just woke up, please for the love of ai slop, stop before you break my definition of the word copilot!

(Fun fact: If you repeat a word sufficiently, it will lose its meaning..)

After reading this thread, my brain is now convinced that copilots are actually some sort of small South American mammals.

I think I'll stick to that definition; I don't want to lose my mental image of the daft-looking little copilots roaming around the Inter-Andean valleys that their more menacing-looking ancestors once inhabited. Yeah, cute little things.

> (Fun fact: If you repeat a word sufficiently, it will lose its meaning..)

Too late. Microsoft already caused that to happen.

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo