61–70 of 183 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see a reason why anyone would want to patent their invention under an LLM though
This announcement was prompted in part by an AI activist named Stephen Thaler (referenced in the article), who sued for AIs to be recognized as inventors and authors. His goal was to give certain moral rights to AIs. At the time, that seemed mostly harmless. Now, however, the idea of giving rights to AIs seems like a bad idea.
AI could, however, poison the well for human patents, by making inventions and putting them into public view. Let's have LLMs churn out millions of discoveries, stick them on a public web site, then use that as a resource to kill other patents.
So you are just flooding a submission box with meaningless noise that at worst merely sounds plausible but doesn't actually work that way in experimentation? It's like trying to pull knowledge from the old Library of Babel website, a repository with every combination of letters, a tremendous volume of noise, and zero discernment of what is true or applicable among it. At best it is merely a glorified filter to that r…
Not at all. GP's idea is not to submit it anywhere. Only once someone else tries to patent X, the AI maintainer would point out that X was already discovered by their AI, is public knowledge and cannot be patented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see a reason why anyone would want to patent their invention under an LLM though
At some point after the invention of AGI but before ASI there will be a legal fight to get personhood assigned to AI. This is a precursor battle to that. It will either lead to a broader definition of person where the higher mammals gain people’s rights as well, and a whole bunch of whalers will get brought up on charges of xenocide, or more likely it will lead to an extension of corporate personhood where the AI alw…
The definition of agi keeps shifting - any time an ai can do something, it's just engineering. Current AIs, although narrow, are already superhuman in what they can do. A language AI can converse in more languages than any living human can learn. A chess playing AI can beat any living human. So each time an AI wins on one metric, it's not going to be human level, it'll be superhuman level very quickly.
When an AI finally learns the "only a human can do this" thing, it'll already be superhuman in every other way.
AI could, however, poison the well for human patents, by making inventions and putting them into public view. Let's have LLMs churn out millions of discoveries, stick them on a public web site, then use that as a resource to kill other patents.
> AI could, however, poison the well for human patents, by making inventions and putting them into public view. Feb 29, 2025, Washington, DC: "A Federal Court ruled today that AI-generated text does not qualify as prior-art...."
AI could, however, poison the well for human patents, by making inventions and putting them into public view. Let's have LLMs churn out millions of discoveries, stick them on a public web site, then use that as a resource to kill other patents.
Somebody tried to copyright all the melodies already. https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxepzw/musicians-algorithmic... I have no idea if it worked and I’m surprised if it did.
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm
TL;DR musical copyright is already borderline-absurd just given nearly-free recording and retention and a lot of people participating in musical creation for a century or three. Add incredibly-productive creativity-simulating computers to the mix and it’s entirely absurd—nothing’s actually original enough to pass as distinct beyond a surprisingly-quickly-reached point, the space is too small. It all becomes accidental rediscovery or outright plagiarism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You misunderstand it, you can use AI or whatever as a tool but the patent must be applied for under your name with you as the creator.
I don't see a reason why anyone would want to patent their invention under an LLM though
One thing I never understood.. is who actually checks for honesty in this space? For example we heard AI can't patent inventions, or copyright pictures/images. But how do you prove that my picture, or invention even used AI? If I remove watermarks from AI pictures, either through code or photoshop; Or just credit myself for the invention (I made it up in my head), how is this enforced? I see the only way of this AI s…
Parties with interests. If I'm litigating against a patent, I want that patent declared invalid. Anyone can initiate an IPR challenging the validity of patents as well.
For any of the AI's recipes to be patented, a human would have to try the recipe and assert that it is a thing to behold.
One thing I never understood.. is who actually checks for honesty in this space? For example we heard AI can't patent inventions, or copyright pictures/images. But how do you prove that my picture, or invention even used AI? If I remove watermarks from AI pictures, either through code or photoshop; Or just credit myself for the invention (I made it up in my head), how is this enforced? I see the only way of this AI s…
You misunderstand it, you can use AI or whatever as a tool but the patent must be applied for under your name with you as the creator.
If you have artistic intent by giving the monkey access to the camera and the monkey takes the picture, it can't be copyrighted. Similarly, if you have intent and give AI access to create something, you shouldn't be able to patent it.