The tax you pay is one the net gain, which is the amount realized less the base of the good (i.e., what you paid to acquire). I’m not a tax expert, and real estate can get really fucky with this stuff, but that’s my understanding of the fundamental rules for taxation.

Also, the search was triggered because that’s literally what happened and he refused to cooperate.

No, but parenting can be pretty complex and there is a large degree of variability child to child. The idea that you either are a psychotic helicopter parent (because there is really no other interpretation to demanding a parent be around their toddler 24/7) or simply should not have children is a gross oversimplification and also, more importantly, fuckinh prima facie dumb as shit.

Cool. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about then!

A lemmur

Keep in mind that this isn’t creating 3d Billy volumes at all. While immensely impressive, the thing being created by this architecture is a series of 2d frames.

You have different fees related to bringing the patent to issuance that depend on the quality of the application (many patents just never issue) and that can rack up considerably. Then you have maintenance fees every few years after issuance that increase exponentially. In the US.

Filing and prosecuting a patent application is already very expensive. Moreover, different entities are charged different rates, ranging from solo inventory (75% discount), to small entity (50%), and large/standard entity (0%, of course). Might be a little off on those discounts, been a minute since I’ve had to look directly at it.

I really hate this reduction of gpt models. Is the model probabilistic? Absolutely. But it isn’t simply learning a comprehensible probability of words–it is generating a massively complex conditional probability sequence for words. Largely, humans might be said to do the same thing. We make a best guess at the sequence of words we decide to use based on conditional probabilities along a myriad number of conditions (including semantics of the thing we want to say).

The ultimate issue is that the models don’t encode the training data in any way that we historically have considered infringement of copyright. This is true for both transformer architectures (gpt) and diffusion ones (most image generators). From a lay perspective, it’s probably good and relatively accurate for our purposes to imagine the models themselves as enormous nets that learn vague, muddled, impressions of multiple portions of multiple pieces of the training data at arbitrary locations within the net. Now, this may still have IP implications for the outputs and here music copyright is pretty instructive, albeit very case-by-case. If a piece is too “inspired” by a particular previous work, even if it is not explicit copying it may still be regarded as infringement of copyright. But, like I said, this is very case specific and precedent cuts both ways on it.

This is actually an effective measure when you sit down to actually think about this from a policy perspective. Right now, the biggest issue with AI generated content for the corporate side is that there is no IP right in the generated content. Private enterprise generally doesn’t like distributing content that it doesn’t have ability to exercise complete control over. However, distributing generated content without marking it as generated reduces that risk outlay potentially enough to make the value calculus swing in favor of its use. People will just assume there are rights in the material. Now, if you force this sort of marking, that heavily alters the calculus.

Now people will say wah wah wah no way to really enforce. People will lie. Etc. But that’s true for MOST of our IP laws. Nevertheless, they prove effective at accomplishing many of their intents. The majority of private businesses are not going to intentionally violate regulatory laws of they can help it and, when they do, it’s more often than not because they think they’ve found a loophole but were wrong. And yes, that’s even accounting for and understanding that there are many examples of illegal corporate activity.

Food production and transport is famously a zero emission industry.

You think the man that literally included collective punishment as part of his initial campaign platform wouldn’t be worse for Palestinians than Biden, regardless of the tepidness of the current response that at a bate minimum at least gives lip service to concepts of proportionality and the avoidance of civilian casualties?

No, they would just keep everything trade secret and we’d have no idea how to replicate the medicine.

This is very incorrect except for the very high level. Patents cover systems and methods and devices that are more than mere physical phenomena. Patent owners are granted an exclusive monopoly over the implementation of what the patent issued on (i.e., its eventual claims) that runs up to 20 years from the time of filing. They are an intellectual property right premised in property theory.

Trademarks cover designators of origin. Fundamentally, they are to reduce consumer confusion and are ultimately nothing more than a presumption once granted in favor of the owner in unfair competition disputes. They are also an intellectual property but are premised in totally different theories of law and can apply to literally anything that can be strongly associated with a company, more or less.

Copyright is an intellectual property, yes, but is limited to creative expression fixed in a tangible medium. This is a very short sentence but has some pretty serious depth to it. Copyright is ultimately a very specific type of right to, and this may shock you, copying a thing (fixed in a tangible medium…you do not have copyright on ideas).

That all said, pharma patents and, really, industry as a whole is super fucked and needs serious reimagining in the current era. But some form of IP absolutely is necessary to incentivize and enable drug creation of it is to persist in our free market capitalist economic structure.

No, I think you’ve been lied to. Santos donned the Spartan armor for all humanity and slew the alien Covenant for the survival of us all.

This might be very idiosyncratic to how you engage with people or with whom. I’ve lived in the deep Midwest and in an east coast major city. My name is EXTREMELY jewish. I have literally never had to explain my position on Israel or zionism when introducing myself. If Israel comes up in conversation in one way or another? Sure, people have asked what my opinion is, as a Jewish person, on Israel or such and such events, but that’s pretty reasonable and I don’t think ever frontloaded with anything.

The reasoning that claims training a generative model is infringing IP would still mean a robot going into a library with a card it has to optically read all the books there to create the same generative model would still be infringing IP.

When they try to enforce the copyright against an alleged infringer, the infringer may claim the holder committed a fraud on the office and there is in fact no enforceable copyright. No one really knows how this would pan out in litigation because it’s untread territory.

No. Recipes are not copyrightable because they’re largely functional things for instructing a process to create a food, which simply is not in the purview of copyright. Specific recipes could very well be patented, depending on the specifics. There are no “explicit exclusions” here.