The last 15 years when Apple hasn't had a real mass consumer machine except for the mac mini have been kind of an exception.
If you're talking about a span of hundreds of years, a span of 15 years may be an exception. A span that's one third of the company's existence is not.
Regardless of anything else, no one should need a constitutional amendment to do this. This can just be a regular statute law.
If it were a regular law, a state court could potentially invalidate it for violating the state constitution in some way.
If you hook up to electricity from Quebec then your coffee pot is going to make poutine and your TV will only ever play hockey.
I fail to see the problem here.
by the way it's not even a children's charity. It's actually some religious organization masquerading as a children's charity to scam people into giving money to their church. That makes them extra-double-super loathsome.
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.
If it's a question of legality, then Claude is *not* the one to ask; the court should know the answer to that question without having to consult anybody but the current laws.
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.
Attorney-client privilege (and its cousin attorney work product) have nothing to do with copyright, so your first question is meaningless.
Did you miss my very first sentence when I wrote: "While this has not been tested, it would seem that if AI generated art cannot be copyrighted then anything generated by AI is not protected in other ways.
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.
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).
And my point again (which you missed) is what lawyers have charged as a fixed fee was based on the amount of work previously required. A filing costs $XXX amount because it took a certain amount of work. If filing are generally easier, then my question again is does that/should that change the fixed fee system?
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.
You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish. -- from the tunefs(8) man page
