51–60 of 74 posts
Patents should be eradicated from this planet. China will outgrow US/EU/Japan because they have little enforcement for these things and execution matters, not ideas.
Without them everything would be a trade secret and the workplace would turn into an intrigue minefield.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a ridiculous idea. AI is a machine like anything else. If I use any other machine to produce a creative work, I own the rights to it. There is no reason for tensorflow to be treated differently. (edit: artwork is probably not a great 1-1 example here because it is not patentable.)
I fully disagree, on two grounds. 1. AI is by far our least machine-like invention yet. Our ability to predict the choices a state of the art AI makes, or even reason about them, is extremely limited. As a relevant example, I would argue that AlphaGo's move 37 was creativity by the AI and not its creators, none of whom was a Go grandmaster. 2. AIs can iterate and output creative works extremely rapidly. If we credit…
2. Creativity is not a fixed resource that is allocated.
> If we credit all such creative works to the AI's creator with the current IP approach
This is not the current approach. This is what the Artificial Inventor Project is lobbying the USPTO to do, and it is what I am criticizing.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action#Drugs_with...
This reminds me of an early scene in the film adaptation of Asimov's "Bicentennial Man" when robots had no individual rights at all. The robot in question presents anomalous behavior such as creativity and curiosity. US Robotics offers a free replacement for this defective unit but the owner refuses much to the chagrin of US Robotics; the owner and family want this defective, creative, curious robot. Along the way of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My first thought is that this perspective is conflating Capitalism with a Free Market. Free Markets are about competition and consumer rights. Capitalism - from what I've read - is about a minority having the decision making power with regards to capital allocation. So the USA has a free market system ran by capitalists. I would argue that IP laws can be favorable from the perspective of Capitalism but not the Free M…
That would be more of an oligopoly. Capitalism and free markets are more or less the same thing. However certain forms of regulation and lobbying can result in oligopies also known as 'crony capitalism'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because actual capitalism was co-opted a long time ago by large powerful corporations who don't like to lose and have the money to stifle human creativity and general societial progress by lobbying authorities to ensure they never lose.
I had written a whole comment about this but paused and did some research. Very interesting to read about the origins of patents. Not what I expected! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Patent_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Brunelleschi#An_innova...
This was done deliberately in the time when kings could grant patents to anyone they choose.
Unfortunately, this US rule was significantly weakened by the America Invents Act (2011). The AIA, among other things, changed US law to a first-to-file scheme rather than a first-to-invent scheme. This change favors big corps because they tend to file patents early before public disclosure of the inventions.
Patents should be eradicated from this planet. China will outgrow US/EU/Japan because they have little enforcement for these things and execution matters, not ideas.
IP norms are a small reason among many related reasons why China will outgrow US/EU/Japan. In China, everything is for the collective, the nation, the 100-year plan. In the West everything is for the self. We're happy to tear each other apart for the chance at getting some individual gains. I think it's pretty clear which of these cultures wins out in the long term.
Before that there were other cultural and political upheavals where the victors re-wrote history and changed the culture of China.
So at least to me it is not clear what Chinese culture will look like in 50 years let alone a 100.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This AI did invent anything in a vacuum. There is some analogy to a fitness function that drove it to a result. It is not self aware.
> It is not self aware It's a bold move to encode that into law when we don't know if that woll hold true in some decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IP norms are a small reason among many related reasons why China will outgrow US/EU/Japan. In China, everything is for the collective, the nation, the 100-year plan. In the West everything is for the self. We're happy to tear each other apart for the chance at getting some individual gains. I think it's pretty clear which of these cultures wins out in the long term.
Its only about 45 years since the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). Before that it was the Communist Revolution (1946-1949). Before that there were other cultural and political upheavals where the victors re-wrote history and changed the culture of China. So at least to me it is not clear what Chinese culture will look like in 50 years let alone a 100.
I don't know enough about Chinese history to know how to evaluate the present.
Is it realistic thought that a similar revolution could even happen in 21st century China? It seems like they have all the apparatus in place to prevent that (mass surveillance, information controls, no freedom to protest/demand, a strong and stable military, etc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recall a seminar in grad school where they had a legal scholar come in and I remember her saying that the general prescient for ai is that it's viewed as a tool for creating the end product. I.e. my pen didn't make the patent for Jim's Amazing Patent (tm), but I did and I used the pen to design and sketch it out.
Is 'prescient' there supposed to be 'precedent'? Neither word makes perfect sense to me in that context, but I can't think of anything better.