Why is Copilot so bad?

I have found a reference to what I remembered: https://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/05/world/computer-breaks-...

I was specifically not referring to Copilot, but asking in general. However,

> But certainly as far as Co-Pilot is concerned, I think your references to indices and concordances misses the point. They may be new works of scholarship, but they are intended to direct you back to the original. Co-Pilot, it seems, hides the original from you so are "quoting blind" if you use its output.

Note that the reconstructed text from mining the concordance and indexes was useful precisely because the original was not available. If it had been, the reconstructed text would be useless. They specifically claimed that the reconstructed text was not new in any way, it had been done by a computer(!). The original text guys, paradoxically, while calling them "pirates", claimed the reconstructed text was not the same as the original, and hence had no value.