You sound like a kind dude. His name was Daniel.

If you can afford it at all, do it for me. I lost the chance to play with my best friend ever again earlier this year when he took his own life. He taught me to play guitar at 12 and we played together for years before he suffered from extreme mental health issues. I would do almost anything to be able to play with him again. Do it while you still have a chance.

I use Cape and its about as good as I could find for someone that values privacy. It has been good for the past few months for me.

My article was about how copyright law actually supports projects like PhotoCraft and ArtCraft (the software that reverse engineered Photoshop and other adobe products) and REA because, under current law (which is a long case review), clean rooming is okay. It goes back to the Compaq case and a few others. It relies on the idea that copyright protects expression, not function, and if you put a team of lawyers in a room with software and they purely describe the function of the software, and they hand that document to a team of engineers, that is fine under copyright law because it breaks the chain of expression. There's much more detail, but my argument is that AI clean rooming projects are good for consumers in this regard, but that software patents for would be used more expansively in the coming years to counter those products. And so on and so forth. There are like eight more steps and guesses after that, but that was the gist.

As a personal thing, I agree with your conclusions for the most part. I just think there's a lot more to consider in getting there. The road is much more complex than most people give it credit for.

I'm an IP attorney. You don't have copyright over the thing you created with AI as you describe it. Copyright applies only to a minimally original expression by a human at this time.

I hope the study specifically publishes the data on the Model 3. I bought one before I became much more privacy conscious, but I've done my best to mitigate the leakage from that. In doing so, I read through all of Tesla's terms and conditions upon opt out and sending any of my information or information that can be used to identify or profile me, should never be sold to advertisers. I write software licenses for a living so I'm pretty confident in my reading on this. It would be interesting to see what can currently be mitigated by changing some settings and what cannot.

Corporatism has had a hold on the political and legal system in the US since the beginning, just to varying degrees. Shareholder primacy gained a foothold in the 30s and 40s alongside the decay of antitrust law. Prior to that, the Lochner era of cases defined the era of corporate control. The late 1800s had robber barons and oil and railroad tycoons killing people with private police forces. Slave plantations and the vestiges controlled the South, and with it the rest of the country, since the 3/5ths compromise and before. We are just in a new form today with tech companies controlling everything, including the public forum, while SCOTUS green lights everything in favor of corporations, conservatives, and the wealthy, and Congress is absolutely deadlocked. It is definitely a far side of the pendulum swing, and it might be the one we can't realistically swing back from any time soon, but it is well within the political and legal themes of the US historically.

It is a bit more complicated than that, and the legal motivation from the Copyright Office is different than what you describe.

One of the most informative cases, in my opinion, is the Copyright Office's back and forth on Zarya of the Dawn. In their view, even thousands of refining prompts cannot be sufficient to convey copyright protection on an AI generated image since it lacks the necessary control and connection to the person. Suryast is another helpful case. I think they're still very incomplete when you start to consider works like those from Jackson Pollock or, my personal favorite hypo, an artist with a prosthetic that uses statistical machine learning to control the end effector and thus the paintbrush. But those are just hypotheticals for now.

I help chair a conference of IP attorneys and others who specialize in software licensing and AI so we've been talking about this for a while now. We actually just had the conference this week so I can probably share some resources or presentations if people really want to get nerdy about it.