It just seems like a dumb product idea. But you're right, if it sells, they'll make a lot on it.

On the one hand, this tempts me to short Apple stock.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that my sentiments are not widely shared and they'll make money off of this.

There Is No Alternative (TINA)

I'll take the general point you're making.

What's that worth these days?

Absolutely asking the right question here. That's a significant chunk of change.

I think the words "directed to" in the quoted part make the law broader than the entire organism. I think a genetic sequence conferring HIV resistance in humans would count as "directed to" a human organism.

If there's some useful sequence patented for use in another animal that is later used in humans, maybe. Even if the first use would require a royalty payment, I have a hard time believing the courts would allow such a patent to cover subsequent generations in humans. Largely because the people ruling on this stuff are humans.

Using current AI for medical advice is ill advised due to the inaccuracies. Sorry you've had bad experiences with doctors. I've had mostly good experiences with a couple of notable exceptions. I'm in the U.S., so insurance is a bigger problem than doctors.

Knock yourself out.

I doubt it. Customers seem pretty happy with some of the stuff I've worked on, but I don't personally need or want any of it. In fact, depending on how literal you want to be, I don't think anyone needs anything I've worked on. That actually bothers me a bit; it's a wider societal issue, I think—so many things are done because they are profitable, not because they need to be done.

That said, I really like designing and testing little circuits, so I do get a kick out of the stuff I work on, even if I think all of it is ultimately unnecessary.

Existing genetically modified organisms fall under the patent category rather than the copyright category. See https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trademark-patent-copyright.

In the specific instance of not being able to patent genetically modified humans, I doubt the law will change, if only because the idea is just so goddamned creepy to a vast majority of people.

To answer what I take to be your point,
    - The patent system is already very broken and favors the wealthy, as does the legal system writ large.
    - If the goal is owning people, wage slavery is already pretty effective. Decreasing affordability of living, making student loans larger and harder to discharge, outsourcing, and similar strategies are only making the situation worse.

My Dad spends a lot of time on X and buys the hype around AI. Every time I visit, he tells me stuff like, "you have to use AI, otherwise you'll fall behind people who do," and provides various anecdotes of situations where AI was helpful.

I'm an electrical engineer. The stuff I design and build has to actually work. I have to understand why and how it works, otherwise I won't be able to document it or test it properly. AI, in its current form, isn't reliable enough for any of this. My manager has a similar view. There was some work training about using AI for hardware and software. His response: "If this means that I will have to debug AI slop circuit designs, I am going to be very unhappy."

My Mom reads more widely and is skeptical of AI. She's a doctor and her professional organization strongly cautions against trusting the results of AI on medical topics. Saying this and providing examples of such errors didn't get through to my Dad. Oh well.

Monsanto was able to patent the seeds. It is illegal to patent "a human organism". From https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2105.html,

The short sci-fi story The Moat by Greg Egan is a real head trip of a read along these lines.

You shouldn't feel ashamed. It is objectively funny.

I like to think I'd decline. Learning to properly evaluate evidence while writing a master's thesis in a hard science was a formative experience, and I strongly value making decisions on the basis of evidence and reason.

Beyond that, it blows my mind that anyone accumulates more than, say, $10 million and continues to work, much less becomes a billionaire. I would retire tomorrow at a far smaller net worth.

Absolutely. The number is so insane; it's hard to even contemplate. It reminds me that the "con" in con man stands for confidence.