Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 183 posts

Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says

#161

Post by godelski »

ForIveSyntax wrote: post #159
godelski wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

They’re not the same self but then again neither of them are the same self as you are now. Ship of theseus. 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 wh…

I think you and I are in agreement and I'm uncertain if you're responding to me or kmeisthax. Or if you're rebuting my comment or supporting it. But in general I agree with what you said.

Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says

#163

Post by nextaccountic »

nadermx wrote: post #81
bobthepanda wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recipes are actually generally not patentable or copyrightable, which is why recipes have the flowery spiel and giant photos in any cookbook or recipe blog.

"the recipes themselves do not enjoy copyright projection. Lambing,142 F.3d at 434; see also Feist, 499 U.S. at 361 (excluding the factual data—telephone listings—from its consideration of whether a telephone directory is a copyrightable compilation).The list of ingredients is merely a factual statement, and as previously discussed,facts are not copyrightable. Lambing, 142 F.3d at 434. Furthermore, a recipe’s instruc…

This discusses copyright and not patents

Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says

#164

Post by nextaccountic »

COGlory wrote: post #137
mschuster91 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's worth pointing out industrial food preparation processes can be patented. Beyond Meat for instance: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2015161099A1/en

> It's worth pointing out industrial food preparation processes can be patented.

How is it possible that this can be patented, but ordinary recipes can't? Everything is "industrial" if done in a scale large enough

(note: the excerpt from the comment above this chain was about copyright, not patents)

Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says

#165

Post by nextaccountic »

advisedwang wrote: post #85
KoolKat23 wrote: post #18

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”'.

Maybe sifting through tens of thousands of AI creations and selecting which ones are worthy of a patent might count as a significant contribution?

Indeed you are using your own human faculties to discern if a given AI output is useful

Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says

#166

Post by ForIveSyntax »

godelski wrote: post #161
ForIveSyntax wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re not the same self but then again neither of them are the same self as you are now. Ship of theseus. 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 wh…

I think you and I are in agreement and I'm uncertain if you're responding to me or kmeisthax. Or if you're rebuting my comment or supporting it. But in general I agree with what you said.

Excellent, I’ll leave it at that. Keep ‘em guessing.

Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says

#167

Post by cactusfrog »

nextaccountic wrote: post #164
COGlory wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth pointing out industrial food preparation processes can be patented. Beyond Meat for instance: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2015161099A1/en

> It's worth pointing out industrial food preparation processes can be patented. How is it possible that this can be patented, but ordinary recipes can't? Everything is "industrial" if done in a scale large enough (note: the excerpt from the comment above this chain was about copyright, not patents)

Industrial food preparation steps can be patented but they probably cannot be copyrighted.

Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says

#168

Post by jMyles »

vundercind wrote: post #66
bee_rider wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“Melancholy Elephants” 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 surpr…

There's nothing borderline about it. It's a barrier to creativity, designed to protect a particular model of music industrialization, and is not widely viewed as helpful as far as I can tell (and I discuss this matter with colleagues frequently).

Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says

#169

Post by nextaccountic »

cactusfrog wrote: post #167
nextaccountic wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's worth pointing out industrial food preparation processes can be patented. How is it possible that this can be patented, but ordinary recipes can't? Everything is "industrial" if done in a scale large enough (note: the excerpt from the comment above this chain was about copyright, not patents)

Industrial food preparation steps can be patented but they probably cannot be copyrighted.

I mean, it looks like culinary recipes by themselves should be able to be patented (not copyrighted, patented), regardless of whether they are "industrial" or not (I mean industrial is only about scale, you can have very complex processes in ordinary kitchens)

Either this or processes to prepare food shouldn't be patented at all

Re: Only real people can patent inventions – not AI, US Government says

#170

Post by godelski »

ForIveSyntax wrote: post #157
godelski wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Alright, another for you because I like the cut of your gib. 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 syste…

I feel like you should be able to infer my answer. It's about impact. I don't know enough to confidently say one thing or another. But I'm sure someone can and it should be reasonable.
Post reply on HN