131–140 of 183 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it isn't considered prior art, then that de-facto makes it possible to patent AI-generated content by laundering them through humans.
I think that's probably expected and also not a big deal. As long as there is a human in the loop it becomes rate limited, saving people from having to look for prior art in some exabyte shit heap.
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…
And before this the copyright or patent office will filter out a lot of obvious applications that don't qualify.
So really unless you are pursuing others for infringement(and they are making a lot of money), no one cares if you are honest about using AI
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its for when AGI takes over that we preemptively ban it from patenting gazillion inventions in 1 day.
Well, it's only able to apply for a gazillion inventions in 1 day. The patent office should then just be able to deny all of them in one fell swoop
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.
No, the ruling is more than that it must be filed in the name of a human. It also says 'a real person must have made a “significant contribution”'.
It is technically true that the latter is there, but you have to go out of your way to not get a patent for something you create using ai as a tool. It’s very easy to circumvent because it is not meant to be an obstruction to using ai to discover things in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which just shows the ridiculousness of the patent system. I mean what is the fundamental difference between a cooking recipe and the recipe for a pharmaceutical. I guess cooks just didn't have the same lobby power to get their exception reworked (pharmaceuticals were in many places originally excluded from patents as well)
> I mean what is the fundamental difference between a cooking recipe and the recipe for a pharmaceutical. The effort required for validating them. Pharmaceutical compounds can reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars just for the clinical trials and certifications of production steps, and on top of that comes the cost to failed attempts which are rolled into the pricing of products that do make the cut. A cooki…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes sense to give thinking sentient creatures rights, be they carbon or silicon lifeforms. But I think giving current AI rights is jumping the gun quite a bit and will have fairly bad consequences. Namely if AI can invent pattents then what's to stop OpenAI, Google, Meta, Anthropic, etc from claiming ownership of any work invented with the help of their AI tools? Our goals are to protect the little guy. Someday…
Maybe machines will deserve rights eventually. However, the nature of those rights would be different. Going without electricity for any amount of time just amounts to a temporary loss of consciousness, whereas animals starve. Data can be duplicated with ease. Lots of differences between carbon-based and hypothetical silicon-based life.
But I think at an abstract level we should all be equal. Specific will be different, but general abstract rights should be the same. Like what you point out has to deal with death. But it can get more nuanced and real fast. Removing a biological's arm is significant destruction. Removing a robot's arm is still damage, but not life altering as it can be either reattached (if it was simply disassembled), likely easily repairable, and most certainly replaceable. So the punishment should be different. The reverse situation might be forcing one into a MRI machine. Annoying for human, death for the robot. Backups also are tricky as we have to get into the whole philosophical debate about what self means and without a doubt there is "death" between the time/experiences that were lost (maybe bad analogy is force teleporting someone into the future, but where they just take over the consciousness of the future self and have no memories of the time between despite it actually having happened).
Yeah, I agree that it's going to make things more complicated and it is very much worth thinking about. It's important if you believe in aliens too (why wouldn't you?), because if it is ever possible to make contact with them (I'm certain we have not already. You're not going to convince me with tic-tacs), we will need to adapt to them too. It's a general statement for "non-human life."
IMO I think this is why it is so important to focus on the spirit of the law rather than the letter. The letter is a compression of the spirit and it is without a doubt a lossy compression. Not to mention that time exists...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes sense to give thinking sentient creatures rights, be they carbon or silicon lifeforms. But I think giving current AI rights is jumping the gun quite a bit and will have fairly bad consequences. Namely if AI can invent pattents then what's to stop OpenAI, Google, Meta, Anthropic, etc from claiming ownership of any work invented with the help of their AI tools? Our goals are to protect the little guy. Someday…
In the absence of more rigorous definitions of "life" or "sentience" we must have such laws. This has been an issue for a long time and doesn't just affect AI (people on life support, abortion, etc). Surely we should solve those legal problems before deciding whether an AI gets to be a person.