151–160 of 183 posts
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”'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't your scheme point out contradictions in "intellectual property"? That is, a machine can churn out a discovery, demonstrating that the act of creation isn't special. And that undermines categories of justifications for IP. The machines in question aren't motivated to create by a government granted monopoly on the fruits of their creation. The act of creating the invention isn't special - a machine did it. No n…
A machine can churn out plausible maybe-discoveries - things that may not be true, may not be workable, and may not be useful. Or, they may be all of the above. A huge mass of maybe-discoveries is actually not a very useful thing. Within it there are useful things, and (many more) useless things. Figuring out which is which is going to take a lot of work. Until someone puts in that work, the unfiltered spew of "ideas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>Data can be duplicated with ease This has significant implications for the basic concepts undergirding democracy. Machine intelligence can be cloned. If we gave machines rights, then ballot-stuffing would become trivial: have an AI clone itself a million times and vote for the candidate that you prefer. It'd be about as reliable as an online poll. This isn't a problem for human voting because humans are scarce. We c…
This is not entirely correct and we need to get into the weeds to have a proper answer. Most certainly machine's memories are easier to duplicate and replicate than biologicals'. But that's certainly just a distinction of technologies.
We really need to get into the understanding of what the concept of self is. Which I have no answer. But here's the thought experiment to understand the premise. Take your self right now (or any point in the past, but it's easier to be biased that way) and think of a possible major life changing decision you could take. Simulate yourself making different possible decisions (easiest if binary, but it never will be that simple in reality). Project yourself 10 years or so down each path. Are those two people "the same person?" There's certainly arguments for either direction and anyone saying they have a clear well defined answer is fooling you.
Personally, I believe no, they are not. This is because my belief on the self is conditioned on experiences. Without a doubt these people will respond to certain things differently, despite likely having many similar or even identical responses to many other things.
But despite this I still think your argument and concern is valid about ballot-stuffing, especially since my interpretation of self is also conditioned on time and I believe your argument is mostly focused on the instantaneous (or local temporal) cloning. I think this could present a possible solution, in that we define age for machines differently and this is conditioned on the cloning, transfering, pretraining, whatever.
But certainly I have no doubt that what we often take for granted and treat as trivial will reveal its actual complexity. We fool ourselves into thinking simplicity exists, and certainly this is a very useful model, but the truth is that nothing is simple. I think it is best we start to consider and ponder nuances now rather than when we are forced to. After all, the power of humans world modeling and simulation is one of the things that differentiate us from other animals (who many have these same capabilities, but I'm not aware of any that has them remotely to the same degree. Fucking nuance gotta go an make everything so difficult... lol).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes me think of a good use case for AI: delete all the flowery spiel and giant photos and ads, and return the recipe I actually am looking for.
I use this app for that: https://www.paprikaapp.com (no affiliation, just a happy customer)
Mealie and Tandoor are both self hosted solutions that can import Paprika data and add features on top of it.
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”'.
This is so interesting... it sounds to me that operators can have AIs "inventing" things and publicly sharing these things. Creating so much stuff (like bitcoin but for AI) covering virtually everything - from science to music.
And because no humans contributed to these inventions, they all essentially become Public Domain.
Because AIs can churn out inventions at breathtaking speeds... they might leave nothing for humans to invent, nothing to copyright, nothing to attached words like Intellectual Property to.
Information is Free? Infinite monkey theorem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if you could be prosecuted based on how long you turned a sentient machine off. Not murder, per se, but the time value of consciousness. And this bleeds into whether murder should be a bigger crime if the (bio)victim is younger. What might you try to say is the general spirit? The crime of denying agency over time?
I would conditionally be in favor of that actually. But it may be difficult to properly contextualize, especially not being a creature that does this. Sleep is analogous but incomplete. Maybe closer to anesthesia? Like if you forcefully placed someone into a coma we'd consider that a crime, but we don't consider it to be the case for a doctor, even if a doctor does it (acting as a doctor, not just being a doctor) wit…
Consider the octopus, whose nervous system is distributed into nodes in the head and limbs. Would severing a limb of a hypothetical sentience-uplifted octopus be a greater crime than severing the limb of a human?
A human loses twice as much in terms of limb, but ignore that for sake of argument.
The octopus loses a more significant part of its nervous system. This feels like another aspect of robbing a sentience of agency.
So with sentient machines, if I removed a stick of RAM or underclocked the CPU, what do you think of these?
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-paymen...
So any techno-dystopian fantasies about AI's somehow patenting "all" possible inventions (in some particular area) ...those automatically fail their fiscal reality checks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Data can be duplicated with ease This has significant implications for the basic concepts undergirding democracy. Machine intelligence can be cloned. If we gave machines rights, then ballot-stuffing would become trivial: have an AI clone itself a million times and vote for the candidate that you prefer. It'd be about as reliable as an online poll. This isn't a problem for human voting because humans are scarce. We c…
> Machine intelligence can be cloned. This is not entirely correct and we need to get into the weeds to have a proper answer. Most certainly machine's memories are easier to duplicate and replicate than biologicals'. But that's certainly just a distinction of technologies. We really need to get into the understanding of what the concept of self is. Which I have no answer. But here's the thought experiment to understa…
But then the self itself is an abstraction. Consider Indra’s Net, the subconscious, dissociative identity disorder, and all realms of complication.
I suspect that the best way to understand the difficulty of talking about consciousness is that it’s a weakness of how language works.
Similar to arguments about whether God could create a 4-sided triangle? God’s omniscient, says one side, so yes. God still has to follow logic, says another. Yet my stance is that it’s an ill-posed question. Just because words can fit together grammatically doesn’t mean the phrase is meaningful.
I think the self is just an abstraction and label to group together a class of linguistic phrases or bodily behaviors. Where are these or those words coming from? Some come from my ears with a high pitch, some from my ears with a low pitch, some come from inside.
Not sure I’m making my point but I suspect language is to blame for the difficulty in understanding consciousness
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And thus we usually do not have patents for songs, only copyright protections.
Recipes are not copyrightable either.