First off, I wanted to thank everyone for all of the positive feedback on the podcast episode that @Curtis Hays and I shared! It's been incredible to see people like @Mira Bradshaw and @Greg Faysash running with the idea, testing it, and putting it to work in their ICM projects. I especially appreciated what Mira added to the discussion. One of the things I appreciate most about cognitive functions is that it isn't a box to fit people into. It's a starting point to build upon, whether you're working to better understand people or to build agents that approach problems in different ways. And on that foundation, you can build something much deeper. To help with that, we published two new articles in David's Corner that I wrote. They're meant to serve as a foundation and reference for anyone interested in using cognitive functions to design agents. If you have any questions, feedback, or thoughts, I'd love to hear them! The Podcast: https://www.skool.com/cliefnotes/if-your-specialized-agents-dont-think-differently-they-should?p=09e9a36a Mira's Post: https://www.skool.com/cliefnotes/curtis-and-brooke-are-on-to-something-but-tread-carefully?p=34b21988 The Articles: https://www.skool.com/cliefnotes/classroom/c7f102c7

***This message does not constitute legal advice. I am not a licensed attorney and any conclusions or opinions are my own. Should you have questions, please see a licensed intellectual property attorney. *** @Jake Van Clief @Jordan Shaw @Bas Rosario The issue here is, the environment regarding intellectual property as it's associated with LLMs and their use of copyrighted or other protected content for the training of their models was for quite some time very ambiguous. I myself began playing with tools for genAI purposes more than two years ago, but I could see immediately the potential liabilities from such activities due to my time in the film industry and in my experience drawing patent illustrations. Ultimately I stopped what I was doing and waited for clarity to be provided regarding the environment and potential liability that could arise from publishing genAI content or utilizing such tools in my work. Since that time we've had a couple cases come to completion to actually provide some clarity and begin to set precedent within the US legal system, the first of which is: Vacker v. Eleven Labs, In which the parties reached a settlement on August 18th 2025. The financial details regarding the settlement remain confidential under the terms of that agreement, so we aren't entirely sure as to the exact outcome; however, what is clear is that the risk is real. https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2025/08/23/parties-in-vacker-v-eleven-labs-tell-judge-theyve-reached-a-settlement-1st-in-the-ai-copyright-litigation/ More recently, there was an additional settlement agreement in Bartz v Anthropic, the news of which is detailed in the article below, which was from April 8, 2026. In this settlement we do know the monetary value the plaintiffs were awarded. $1.5B, was the amount, which was the largest copyright infringement settlement in US history... for anyone unfamiliar with proceeding, let that sink in.