Perhaps the "consistent" naming helps them shove more through the Enterprise door.

If a large company has bought into "Co-Pilot", they want it all right? Or not, but let's not make carving anything out easy.

Just a thought.

▲

3acctforcom 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This is actually one of their smart decisions. "Copilot" is currently going through the corporate regulators, who know nothing about technology, but I can't buy it until they say everything is Legal.

So once we have signoff then my counterpart in Sharepoint/M365 land gets his "Copilot" for Office, while my reporting and analytics group gets "Copilot" for Power BI, while my coding team gets "Copilot" for llm assisted development in GitHub.

In the meantime everybody just plugs everything into ChatGPT and everybody pretends it isn't happening. It's not unlawful if they lawyers can't see it!

	▲	Nevermark 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for validating my intuition! > In the meantime everybody just plugs everything into ChatGPT I believe you meant "everyone plugs everything into ChatGPT for Co-Pilot"! A statement with its own useful ambiguities. It is comical, but I can now make a serious addition to Sun Tzu's maxims. “All warfare is based on deception.” “To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” "Approval is best co-opted with a polysemous brand envelope."