151–160 of 219 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously. Yet on balance, the ones that can't be kept secret may not be significant. I'm not making a judgement on what the ideal situation is, more so explaining why the referenced study could have come to its conclusion.
Literally any product you send to the consumer can be reverse-engineered at comparatively low cost. The world doesn’t just revolve around server-side software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People talk about capitalism as if there is a choice; as if Gravity might not pull us towards earth.
I'd quibble with that. Capitalism is a choice, market dynamics are not. E.g. The Soviet Union successfully outlawed capitalism, and in response market dynamics made their country collapse.
Capital continued to exist and there continued to be people who decided what got built and who received them. To me, that's private ownership. I mean, it's not like apple trees suddenly began bearing Ladas. If I wanted to acquire a field to occupy / farm, it was presumably controlled by someone, either an individual person or group of people. I don't see the difference in saying that in one situation my neighbor owns the field as personal real estate, versus whatever terminology the soviets used for why I can't just take it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd quibble with that. Capitalism is a choice, market dynamics are not. E.g. The Soviet Union successfully outlawed capitalism, and in response market dynamics made their country collapse.
Unregulated market dynamics also gave us child labor, slave trade, 12h work days, company scrip, companies ruling over governments, etc. A powerful engine without constraints is out of control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Listing out inventors is not about protecting the rights of humans but giving proper attribution to the works. The owner (person or corp) gets protection. AI is attributed as contributor or inventor. With that said, AI contribution should always be disclosed in every medium that it participated in, including patents.
> Listing out inventors is not about protecting the rights of humans but giving proper attribution to the works. This sentence contradicts itself. The reason we attribute inventors is because we recognize it as a legal right. Patents exist to give humans, whether working individually or in a group, an exclusive right to that invention for a period of time, as a legal protection for the activity of inventing. My math…
Can you cite this? What I know is that only Twitter back in the day created this framework that would give inventors the right to disallow for their patents to be used for patent infringement lawsuits. Otherwise, not even the inventor(s) have the right to infringe on their own patents. Inventors have no rights at all. Or if you know otherwise, I would love to hear it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't prove something is/isn't created with AI. Also, if AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, they can't infringe copyright as well
Who says you need to? You can't definitively prove that prior art does/doesn't exist, either. That's not an impediment to getting a patent. The patent will be examined and issued based on the evidence found. If invalidating evidence is found later, the patent can be invalidated. In a legal context what is necessary is evidence , not a math/logic formal proof . > Also, if AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, th…
This is pretty hilarious this even had to be said. These are just software programs, stop acting like a kill -9 is a crime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. Patents incentivize investment in R&D. There is an argument to be made that the scope of patentable inventions should be more limited, in particular preventing trivial patents that didn’t require substantial R&D, and maybe also that patents shouldn’t last as long. But doing away completely with patents would certainly stifle companies’ willingness to invest in R&D. They’d rather wait for someone else to inven…
> Patents incentivize investment in R&D. In theory or in real life?
It would be interesting if AI goes to court for it's rights, non-discrimination, freedom, equality and justice.