No, it is different than Bitcoin. In this case, "gambling" means "receiving a specified amount of money if a specific event occurs" (for example, receiving $1000 if Team A wins today's game). Buying Bitcoin doesn't meet the "specified amount of money" part of the definition, and "the price goes up" generally wouldn't be considered a specific enough event.

Bitcoin would fit the common colloquial definition of gambling, but not this specific legal definition.

If it were a regular law, a state court could potentially invalidate it for violating the state constitution in some way.

I fail to see the problem here.

I'm pretty sure that when articles like this are talking about grid-scale storage, they aren't talking about the small amount of storage that might be useful for load smoothing.

What other sources? You only need storage when you have excess generation that you can't control. If you can reduce generation when needed, why bother with storage?

What exactly do you think grid-scale batteries are used for, if not storing excess energy from solar and wind power generation?

If I remember correctly, it isn't quite that bad. I think it's for a religious school, so it is money being spent on children and not a scam by religious leaders to make money for themselves. It certainly isn't transparent in the ads, and I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to donate to them.

I've seen ads for a small performance venue having shows that I've gone to. I think that might be it, though. The vast majority of Facebook ads that I see are completely irrelevant to me.

If the music or movie that you're copying was generated by AI with no human involvement beyond a trivial prompt, then yes. You're highly unlikely to find much like that.

Of course the prosecutors and judge already knew the answer. That's why the prosecutors did it - to show that the defendant should have known (by simply asking, if he didn't already know) that an LLM is not an attorney and therefore not covered by any attorney privilege.

The prosecutors wouldn't have done the exercise if they didn't know what result they would get.

No, I don't, because your original question was whether or not "notes generated by AI [would] be considered as... privileged".

Would you like to clarify your question?

The entire question of whether or not AI-generated work can be protected by copyright is because copyright law explicitly requires some amount of human creativity in the work. Attorney work product privilege does not have that requirement, so the question isn't applicable.

I'm far from being a free-market fanatic, but this is a situation where it should work pretty well. If a lawyer can charge less than their competitors for the same work, they'll start getting more work.

Butterflies

You are aware that copyright and patents are very different things, right? Trying to use LLMs to flood the USPTO with patent applications is almost certainly going to either be very expensive (there's a fee for filing a patent application) or get you into trouble with the USPTO.

Attorney-client privilege (and its cousin attorney work product) have nothing to do with copyright, so your first question is meaningless.

For your second question, clients are either paying a fixed fee, in which case it doesn't matter what tools the attorneys use, or paying per hour, in which case using an LLM may make the cost lower (whether or not it affects the quality that the client gets is an entirely separate question).